X-Message-Number: 15055
References: <>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:25:05 +0000
From: "Joseph Kehoe" <>
Subject: whale hugging

>Message #15040
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:31:53 EST
>Subject: plutonium "problem", asteroids
>>We also have a large amount of weapon quality plutonium handing around for
>the next 10,000 years and no known way to store it safely for that long and a
>lot of near earth asteriods etc.
>  Why would anyone "store" fission fuel? Why not use it up... maybe diverting
>those near-earth asteroids? Or just dilute it into 3% fuel rods so it isn't
>"weapon-grade" anymore. But if you do want to "store" valuable radioactive
>materials so that future generations can marvel at our superstitions, you can
>dilute it with a suitable molten substrate {borosilicate glass has been
>tested for some reactor products} let it cool into blocks which have whatever
>radioactivity level you want, and use it as a water heater, oops, I mean bury
>it in an expensive storage facility patrolled by genetically engineered guard

As far as I know, despite many years of research, noone has come up with a good 
way of using up the material safely.

The problem is the time factor. I know of one study performed by the gov in 
America into this but they were a bit stumped at the end.

Sending it into space would be nice but is politically impossible (because of 
the perceived threat of accident on the way up)

>  (I would have more sympathy for anti-fission politicians if it weren't for
>the fact that coal plants release 100-400 times more radiation per kw-hr than
>nuclear plants... I just have to suspect there are demogogue motivations
>here, rather than any sincere green concern.)

We should really try stop using coal as well, for similar reasons but people are
more used to coal and so don't think about it.

besides coal plants don't melt down as often ;-)

reply to George Smith (with lots snipped):

>Understand that what is popular in "science" is driven by political forces
>(money).  As many legitimate researchers who read this forum can attest,
>hard science is often quite distant from "popular" science.  Lone wolf
>voices who have the integrity to adhere to the scientific method are
>silenced by the shouting of the rabble.  (One current example is Peter
>Duesberg's ongoing request for ANY scientific evidence to support the
>AIDS-HIV myth.  You see, there is much money through popular grants and
>political spin to continue to perpetuate non existent plagues, such as

I agree with this. The ozone layer and global warming were those unpopular 
theories until recently as also were asteroid impacts etc.

>But let's suppose I'm wrong and through sheer chance the whale huggers have
>gotten it right and the world is facing DOOM, DOOM, DOOM!
>Well, if technology doesn't come up with the solutions, it's all over.
>(Kiss your whale good bye!).
>And the kind of technology which can make cryonics work will probably be
>more than capable of repairing any global damage.  Look at Eric Drexler's
>book ENGINES OF CREATION for 1986-style projections regarding some


But in the meantime  lets stop sticking barbed harpoons in the spines of whales!

The whaling industry has not made a profit for about 80 years or so and never 

>But, finally, as for me, you can KEEP the earth.

Everything else you write I agree with completely and absolutely. First chance 
to get out of this gravity well I will be gone.

As the Ecologists say any animal that evolves for Island life IS doomed to 
extinction -guaranteed!

If we stay here we will become extinct. Besides there is enough asteroid 
material up there to build a couple a thousand earth sized ecosystems in space!
Roll on nano


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15055