67 times around - and once there was a world's fair

Danon,

See: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uouh-rim012606.php

sumac, here's a question i've asked for years regarding nuclear waste and toxins. If industry can manufacture the stuff, why don't they recycle harmful chemicals and nuclear waste instead of dumping or storing.

I think you can't recycle all nuclear waste- there is always some waste which has to be stored for a long time- some thousands years due to the halflife time. I have to look it up again.
A rather chilling thought that we -here and now-are also responsible for this long time of safe storage.

ul, thanks.

Info from Union of Concerned Scientists..........




Nuclear Terrorism and Nuclear Reactors
Reprocessing of Spent Fuel from Nuclear Reactors
An Expensive and Dangerous Road to Nowhere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
U.S. civilian nuclear power plants use only low-enriched uranium (LEU) as fuel. LEU cannot be used directly to make nuclear weapons. As the fuel is burned up in the reactor, plutonium and radioactive fission products are produced. The plutonium and uranium can be separated from the other materials in spent nuclear fuel by "reprocessing," which is a hazardous and expensive series of chemical operations. The purified plutonium that is obtained from reprocessing can be reused as fuel, but states or terrorist groups can also use it to make nuclear weapons. Industry has claimed that reprocessed uranium could also be used in nuclear fuel, but it has refrained from doing so because contamination makes it difficult and expensive to reuse.

Nearly three decades ago, the United States decided on non-proliferation grounds not to reprocess the spent fuel generated by civilian nuclear power plants, but instead to directly dispose of it in a geologic repository.

THE CURRENT ISSUE:
Recently frustration with the slow pace of the geologic disposal program at Yucca Mountain has led some policy-makers to propose reviving the reprocessing option. However, reprocessing will not resolve the nuclear waste problem and would entail increased safety, security, and financial costs:

Reprocessing would hurt US nuclear waste management efforts.
Reprocessing does not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. Moreover, a resumption of reprocessing would divert focus and resources from the U.S. geologic disposal program and hurt?-not help?-the nuclear waste management effort. The siting and licensing requirements for the reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication facilities, and waste processing plants would dwarf those needed to license a repository, and provide additional targets for public opposition. What is most needed today is a renewed focus on the secure interim storage and geologic disposal of spent fuel.

Reprocessing would increase the risk of nuclear terrorism.
We will be much safer if plutonium remains within the highly radioactive spent fuel that is eventually sealed in a secure geologic repository than if plutonium is extracted from spent fuel, fabricated into fresh fuel, and shipped to nuclear reactors around the country, where it would be vulnerable to diversion or theft at every stage.

Reprocessing would increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.
U.S. reprocessing would encourage other countries to do likewise and undermine the U.S. goal of halting the spread of proliferation-prone fuel cycle technologies.
Some reprocessing advocates claim that a new generation of so-called "proliferation-resistant" reprocessing technologies now under development would resolve the proliferation concerns of conventional reprocessing. However, there is little evidence that these technologies would be significantly more secure. Moreover, all reprocessing technologies are far more proliferation-prone than direct disposal, and require much greater resources to be safeguarded against diversion and theft of plutonium.

Reprocessing would entail other costs.
Reprocessing and recycling plutonium is also far more expensive than the once-through system, and increases the public health and safety risks, and environmental impacts of nuclear energy.

ACTION ITEM:
Congress should request a comprehensive study of the nonproliferation, safety and security aspects of the once-through fuel cycle compared to those of fuel cycles incorporating reprocessing, including a hard look at the so-called "proliferation-resistant" features of technologies now under development.

MORE DETAILS:

1. There is no spent fuel storage crisis that warrants a drastic change in course. Hardened interim storage of spent fuel in dry casks is an economically viable, inherently proliferation-resistant option for at least fifty years.

2. Reprocessing and recycling plutonium is far more expensive than the once-through system, even taking into account the projected costs associated with delays in the Yucca Mountain project. For example, in 1999, the Department of Energy estimated it would cost $279 billion over a 118-year period to fully implement a reprocessing and recyling program for the entire inventory of U.S. spent fuel.1 Massive public subsidies, that our nation cannot afford, would be required.

3. Reprocessing does not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. Reprocessing merely converts one waste form--spent fue--into a number of different waste forms, including contaminated uranium. In fact, the total volume of all the radioactive wastes requiring disposal increases by a factor of twenty or more. Reprocessing has little impact on the required repository capacity.

4. A recent report by the French government's Court of Auditors reveals that the French national electric utility, EdF, assumes that its stockpile of reprocessed uranium will be stored for up to 250 years, and concludes that "what makes up 96% of spent fuel appears not to be destined for re-use in the near future."2

5. Civilian reprocessing programs in other countries have led to the accumulation of vast stockpiles of separated civilian plutonium around the globe. This material can be used to make nuclear weapons, and these stockpiles will continue to grow in spite of programs to recycle plutonium as fuel.

6. Substitution of plutonium fuel for uranium fuel in nuclear reactors greatly increases the public health consequences of severe accidents or terrorist attacks because of the high radiotoxicity of plutonium.



Notes
1. "A Roadmap for Developing ATW Technology," Report of Accelerator Technical Working Group, ATW Roadmap, September 1999, LA-UR- 99-3225.

2. Ann MacLachlan, "EDF Accounts Assume Storage of Reprocessed U for 250 Years," NuclearFuel, January 31, 2005, p.8.


For more information contact Dr. Ed Lyman at the Union of Concerned Scientists (202) 331-5445. UCS, 1707 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006.

More information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

This all reminds me of our visit to Los Alamos. We got the feeling that nuclear power was "glorified" in the museum, as it was in Albuquerque.
We don't have a nuclear powerplant in Austria, but we are surrunded by them. I am far more concerned about a not well maintained power plant than a terrorist building a nuclear bomb.

aktbird57 - You and your 286 friends have supported 2,208,562.8 square feet!

Marine Wetlands habitat supported: 95,400.2 square feet.
You have supported: (0.0)
Your 286 friends have supported: (95,400.2)

American Prairie habitat supported: 46,980.2 square feet.
You have supported: (11,470.9)
Your 286 friends have supported: (35,509.3)

Rainforest habitat supported: 2,066,182.4 square feet.
You have supported: (168,379.4)
Your 286 friends have supported: (1,897,802.9)

~~~~~~~~~~~~

2208562.8 square feet is equal to 50.70 acres

I agree, ul.

Thanks for the update ehBeth......

50.7 acres!! Thats great....

We are all having a potential BLAST here on our thread. grin..... \

Good reading all.

During 1981-2, the year I worked in the ground under Seoul, Korea - I said to the guys, "the next nuclear explosion on earth will be in the middle east." - - - We all sat around at times talking about a lot of such things.

Also, on September 11, 2001 - Patti and I were in N Italy visiting her cousins. We heard about the attack that afternoon. During the evening there was much talk about who did the thing - I said I thought it was Osama bin Laden. Nobody there had ever heard of him. I recognised his attack from his earlier attempted attack on the World Trade Towers.

Speaking of the Bush Gang - it's really no wonder, or shouldn't be to anyone, that Osama is still at large. The bin Laden family and the Bush family have a long history of doing business together throughout the world and over a very long period of time. That is primarily why the bin Ladens living in California were permitted to actually fly out of the USA at a time when all flights were grounded following the World Trade Center attacks. And, why at the very time we had Osama cornered in the mountains at Tora Bora we backed off and told the local guys to go after him. Really dumb stuff.
Well - - - duuuh!!!

History shall have it's day........... I'd love to live to see it. Hopefully the truth will be known.

Some chemicals/metals, etc., can be taken back apart to be recycled, if it were economically feasible. But a great deal of the technology to do so is just not practical - the end result is just too expensive, and thus undesirable in the marketplace.

More indication of the effects of global warming, presumably.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_sc/ice_surge&printer=1;_ylt=AoyNppsic.hCBHVeM6DeTRdxieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Arctic Ocean Ice Surges Onto Alaskan Shore Sat Jan 28, 4:52 AM ET



Ridges of sea ice packing car-sized chunks of the cold stuff slammed onto a road in this northern Alaskan town in quantities not seen in nearly three decades.

Two ice surges, known to Alaska Natives as ivus, stunned residents who had never seen such large blocks of ice rammed ashore.

"It just looked like a big old mountain of ice," said L.A. Leavitt, 19, who left his nightshift job at the city to check out the ridges.

Ivus are like frozen tsunamis and crash ashore violently. They have killed hunters and are among the Arctic's most feared natural phenomena.

The ivus crashed ashore Tuesday after strong winds from Russia and eastward currents began pushing pack ice toward Barrow last weekend, said North Slope Borough disaster coordinator Rob Elkins.

By late Monday, thick, old sea ice known as multiyear ice had shoved younger, thinner ice onto shore.

Witnesses here said the northernmost ridge was about 20 feet high and 100 feet long and contained car-size blocks. Ice left a coastal road with only one lane, they said.

"It was just an amazing sight," said Elkins. "It looks like huge stacks of huge ice cubes."

And while we are on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?hp&ex=1138510800&en=0a858f5230677507&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"...But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives affecting his statements had come through informal telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents...

...After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute."

Sue, not surprising at all that those who are readily speaking against harmful enviornmental policies of the administration, are silenced within their government agencies.

News of NEPA:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been called the Magna Carta of environmental protection because it is the foundation on which all other environmental laws are built. NEPA requires the government to review the public health and environmental impacts of proposed federal projects and has repeatedly saved time and governmental costs by reducing controversy, building consensus, and ensuring that all stakeholders understand a proposed project's impacts.

But the House Resources Committee, led by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) has undertaken an effort to weaken NEPA and remove the public from the decision-making process.

Pompo's the architect for gutting the Endangered Species Act (H.R. 3824) the bill would amend provisions of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) such as replacing the requirement of
"best scientific and commercial data available" with "best
available scientific data," adding new considerations for de-listing
of species, repealing critical habitat requirements, and also
providing grants to private property owners for foregone
opportunities and business losses due to ESA compliance.

Attempting to remove critical habitat protections from the ESA, and restricting citizens from protesting envriornmental policies will open national forests for exploitation - tieing a neat package for industry.


NEPA Draft Report Comments
c/o NEPA Task Force
Committee on Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 202-225-5929

A sample letter and talking points..........

To the NEPA Task Force:


Please accept these comments on the Initial Findings and Draft Recommendations from the National Environmental Policy Act Task Force.

I am very concerned that the recommendations by the NEPA Task Force would weaken NEPA in profound and fundamental ways.

NEPA ensures balance, common sense and openness in federal decision-making; it's an effective tool to keep Big Government in check.

By making sure that the public is informed and that alternatives are considered, NEPA has stopped some damaging projects or made them less damaging.

Limiting public involvement and weakening environmental review won't avoid controversy or improve projects. NEPA saves time and money in the long run by reducing controversy, building consensus and ensuring that projects are done right the first time.


The recommendations to amend NEPA and embark on drastic regulatory changes that reduce public participation should be rejected. Some of the ways to make NEPA even more effective without amending the Act are to require monitoring of project impacts, provide agency personnel with adequate training and resources, and make mitigation promises mandatory.

Sorry state of affairs, all around. By the way, that article I quoted from is worth reading in its entirety. It is on the front page of the NYT and will undoubtedly be one of their lead articles in tomorrow's paper. It did not appear today.

sumac, i read the article <both pages> and also posted it at two other forums. Plus, the nyt's page link.

Thanks for the e mail also! Was the first article i read today!

Good research, sumac!

1/25 Dr. Hansen was quoted in my daily newspaper about the NASA findings, and that the greenhouse effect was responsible in his opinion.
My newspaper quoted APA/AP .

Global Temperature, 1861 - 2004
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Annual/HadCRUG.gif

aktbird57 - You and your 286 friends have supported 2,209,897.4 square feet!

Marine Wetlands habitat supported: 95,540.7 square feet.
You have supported: (0.0)
Your 286 friends have supported: (95,540.7)

American Prairie habitat supported: 47,003.6 square feet.
You have supported: (11,470.9)
Your 286 friends have supported: (35,532.8)

Rainforest habitat supported: 2,067,353.0 square feet.
You have supported: (168,402.9)
Your 286 friends have supported: (1,898,950.2)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2209897.4 square feet is equal to 50.73 acres

Not practical??? Guess the powers that be believe living in domned communities after they've destroyed the enviornment - more practical.

Busy,lurking,clicking....Went to a meeting this afternoon re: Cape Cod wind farm. Very interesting. Pro person very articulate, con guy not well prepared. Generally, I'm pro, but there needs to be more oversight and regulation before this flies. Wish it were smaller - 24 acres in the middle of the Nantuket sound is a bit much.
Wish I had time to really read all the fascinating things on this thread.

pwayfarer, i hope you find the info helpful.

Wind Power Facts:


Electricity from wind

Wind power is one of the most promising and cost-effective renewable energy technologies available today. Worldwide there are more than 13,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed.

In the 1980s, California purchased large quantities of wind power, investments that provided the manufacturing and operating experience needed to bring the cost of wind power down to affordable levels. There are now 1600 MW of wind power installed in California, and another 1000 MW installed in other parts of the country. Combined, this is enough to generate electricity for over 750,000 homes.

The number of wind farms in the US has increased substantially in the last few years. In 1999, there were 730 MW of new wind farms installed. The US Department of Energy projects that by the end of 2001, the US will have 4600 MW of wind power, enough to generate electricity for 1.7 million homes. Due to the increasing number of wind farms, the price for wind power will fall. Currently, wind power costs between 3 and 6 cents per kWh to generate. By 2005, it is expected to be closer to 2 cents, making it one of the cheapest resources available.


How wind plants produce electricity

Wind plants use large blades to catch the wind, turning rotors that produce electricity. Just as fossil-fueled plants use steam or combustion gases to turn electricity-producing rotors, wind plants use many wind turbines, often assembled on a large single wind site called a wind farm, to generate electricity. The modern wind farm may consist of as many as 100-500 wind turbines connected to the electric transmission grid.

Wind turbines commonly begin to produce power at a wind speed of 10-12 miles per hour. Wind plants produce electricity only when the wind blows, so if the wind is not blowing, the plant is not producing electricity. For this reason, wind is called an intermittent resource.

Because wind follows patterns that can be predicted, and because particular locations have more reliable winds and will produce power more regularly, the value of wind for meeting consumer demand can be significant. Further, the intermittent nature of wind power does not produce significant problems for large electric systems as long as wind is a small proportion of the total system (less than 2-3 percent of total local system capacity).

Wind energy is ...

http://www.cogreenpower.org/Wind.htm

aktbird57 - You and your 286 friends have supported 2,210,459.3 square feet!

Marine Wetlands habitat supported: 95,728.0 square feet.
You have supported: (0.0)
Your 286 friends have supported: (95,728.0)

American Prairie habitat supported: 47,073.9 square feet.
You have supported: (11,494.3)
Your 286 friends have supported: (35,579.6)

Rainforest habitat supported: 2,067,657.4 square feet.
You have supported: (168,426.3)
Your 286 friends have supported: (1,899,231.1)

~~~~~~~~~~

2210459.3 square feet is equal to 50.75 acres

~~~~~~~~~~



http://www.chinapage.com/newyear.html

Happy Chinese New Year!