From: zarthac@bradley.edu (Matt Simmons)
Subject: Re: CBM Announces Price Cuts on A4000/A1200
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:15:44 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Reply-To: zarthac@cs1.bradley.edu
X-Posted-From: cs1.bradley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Gregory R Block (gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan27.020209.10879@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, Matt Simmons (zarthac@bradley.edu) wrote:
: : Oh yeah, there's such a lot of waste too....  I read somewhere (I can't 
: : remember the exact source, tho I just looked in Rush's book & its not in there)
: : that if you took all the waste from all the plants worldwide, and put them 
: : on a football field, it'd make a 3ft layer.  This is all the waste from the 
: : last 10-20 years....

: A three foot deep swimming pool of toxicity ONLY the size of a football
: field?  In 10-20 years?  That's NOTHING, you're right!  And in the HUGE
: time this will take to become harmless, or even close, we'll have FILLED
: that football field.  That would simply be a WONDROUS place to see the
Oh gee, I'm hard.  A _whole_ football field!?!?!  OH MY GOD!  For Christ's
sake, there are plenty of places we could store a football field's worth
of nuclear waste, and nobody would be harmed by it... There's this large place
in Northwestern Russia/USSR/Whatever they're calling them selves today called
Siberia.  Put it there.  Or, put it underneath a desert.  Think of the percent
of the Earth's surface that a football field takes up.

And another thing, the amount of waste would be something ridiculously small
(sorry, don't have the source for this either) if we would let our nuclear
plants re-use their spent fuel/waste, much of which _can_ be re-used.  But
we don't, and so the small percentage of the waste along with the rest of it,
which is perfectly reusable fuel, is stuffed into a storage/dump site.

Consider this.  Which form of power production in widespread use (i.e. not
wind farms, solar cells, etc, which are basically confined to certain areas)
pollutes less by volume?  The answer is nuclear power, and nuclear power is
the best way to generate power that we have until we develop cost-effective
methods for fusion.

: other eco-freaks in this group, this eco-freak doesn't think the
: eco-freaks are going to win.  No matter how hard we push, our capitolist
Well, that Arkansas hick, his activist wife, and Chicken Little Veep are going
to try their damndest to....  Even if the Hick doesn't believe in what he's 
doing, he has to pay back all of the left-wing groups which contributed 
mightily to getting him in office.

: Anyone got the address/phone # for Earth First?
Anyone got the address/phone # for Putting People First?
--
zarthac@cs1    \               / Macs are more bullet proof, because the  /
zarthac@camelot >.bradley.edu / authors have the leeway to assume total  /AMIGA
zarthac@buhub  /             / user idiocy. - Charles C. Bundy IV       /   ///
-----------------------------------------------------------------------/   ///
And I've seen Windows CRASH, too...  nothing is bulletproof, you just /\\\/// 
need a big enough bullet. - Frank R. Dana, Jr.                       /  \XX/ 
--------------------------------------------------------------------/
This newsgroup is like a big cuddly never ending witch hunt.  The  / For the
only problem is that instead of spears and flaming piles of wood, / creative
we have soft cushy pillows. - Ian Kennedy (c.s.a.a)              / mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also the fact that one generally wants to MAKE MONEY off products one
develops, not give them away to twerpy prepubescent drips who wouldn't pay for
software if it came out of the monitor and blew them. - Marc Wandschneider