[FoRK] Malthusian machinations

Reese howell.r at inkworkswell.com
Thu Jun 17 12:29:44 PDT 2010

On 17-Jun-10 13:14, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Reese wrote:
>> Of course, you can always petition to have those materials stored in
>> your back yard instead of someone else's - and by that I mean within
>> a few miles of where *you* live.
> Oh noes, Scary Atoms. This is the reason the nuclear chemistry research facility just down the road -- I spent some time there as an undergrad -- tries to keep its existence undocumented. It might spook the cattle if they realized that Magical Evil, excuse me, uranium and plutonium was stored in suburbia along with a lot of other isotope rubbish.

I'd imagine there is a large difference between this research facility
and what they store - and what would be dumped at Yucca Mountain.

> I'm the wrong person to persuade with that non-argument.

So, no address on the idea of finding a better way to dispose of
or neutralize nuclear waste? You're fine with dumping it in a hole
in the back yard?

> It is a hazard that can be managed like any other.

Dumping nuke wastes into a hole in the ground, with the intention of
forgetting them once the hole is "full" and capped off, isn't managing
them. It's disposal, same as garbage and trash that goes to landfills.

> I'm frankly more concerned about nasty conventional chemistry contamination. Unlike anything with the N-word in front of it, the cattle aren't concerned about this and the safety levels match that level of concern.

I'm no fan of superfund sites either. Both are worrisome, in my view.


More information about the FoRK mailing list