From: pstonge@TrentU.CA (cmdr keener)
Subject: Re: IGNORANCE is BLISS - But EDUCATION is SEXIST
Reply-To: pstonge@TrentU.CA
Organization: Trent University, Peterborough
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:59:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.233303.16224@news.nd.edu>, gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu
 (george smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.150647.21351@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>  
>dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>> >In article <1992Dec11.112049.11697@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>  
>constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>
>> >3. Greenpeace and its eco-cohorts have invented global warming as an
>> >impending disaster about to happen. What are their solutions? If they 
>> >were scientifically educated instead of brainwashed, they could find
>> >out (research--gasp!) how much CO2 a fossil plant coughs up every day.
>> 
>>  Well.....since this has been a COLD winter they're now saying a new ice
>> age is coming upon us! Seems to me eco-scientists don't really know much
>> about either.
>> 
>
>"Invented" global warming?  Have you done any reading on the subject at  
>all?  I have only done a little and what I've seen is that there has been  
>an enormous amount of research done on the subject. A lot of it suggests  
>that we may be undergoing a long term climate change due to the increased  
>emissions of anthropogenically produced "greenhouse gases."  Of course,  
>not all researchers agree (researchers hardly ever do).  

	HERE HERE!!!

>	As far as nuke plants v. fossil fuel plants go, neither of them is  
>ideal.  With fossil fuels you have to worry about all sorts of air  
>pollution, where to mine it, what you'll do when it runs out, etc.  With  
>nuclear plants, you have to worry about them blowing up and where you're  
>going to put the radioactive waste. 
	Sorry, George, though I agree with you on all but one point, I have 
to take you to task over the 'worry' that the nukes blow up.  You might be 
intereseted to know that the CANDU reactor are designed such that the 
coolant water is ALSO the moderator.  In other words, the reaction JUST 
WON'T WORK without the coolant water (D2O).  Hence, core explosion due to 
coolant loss is a moot point.
	Okay, well what about meltdown?  Unlike most if not all of its 
counterparts, the Canadian CANDU reactor does NOT use enriched uranium 
fuels. U-238 is present only in small quantities ( <20%, and that's a high 
estimate) as UO3, an inert solid.  MAny other reactors, among with are the 
reactors found in the U.S. are fueled with enriched UF6 (uranium 
hexafloride) a VERY reactive chemical.  As a matter of fact, UO3 is the 
metal used in spent uranium rounds used by many branches of the US armed 
services (I don't know about the Canadian Forces, but I'm sure that if the 
ammo were available, it would be used there too.), and in many other 
sectors - UO3 metal is dense, REALLY dense - twice that of lead and MUCH 
MUCH more rigid!  Works well in aircraft control surfaces to overcome air 
pressure.  I've held some of this stuff, and this stuff is just plain 
HEAVY!!!!!  You wouln't catch me using it in place of my diving weights, 
though (-:  )

>				 Personally I would choose neither and  
>spend more money (that Reagan removed from the budget) on renewable energy  
>technologies.  Not only is it clean, but it has the potential of being  
>marketable and exportable, if the Germans and the Japanese don't beat us  
>to it. If I had to choose a lesser evil for the short term, I would choose  
>nuclear power for its reductions in air pollution.
	Well George, have you heard about what the New Alchemy Institute, 
as well as the Institute for Social Ecology have been doing?  They've been 
doing LOTS of work on sustainable living, small scale power, and small scale
vegetable and fish culture*  Might make for interesting reading...  8-)
>	
>peace and trees,
>
>george

Step Lightly...

Pete.

*McLarney, William, 1987.  The freshwater aquaculture book. Harley and 
	Marks, Point Roberts, Washington 98281.  isbn 0-88179-018-4
Newsgroups: talk.environment