Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Nuclear Fusion
Message-ID: <1274@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Sep-83 13:14:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1274
Posted: Mon Sep 26 13:14:27 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Sep-83 05:19:02 EDT
References: purdue.597
Lines: 55


Oh, boy, nuclear flames!

I have run into a good many people who are upset about nuclear power because
of the "waste disposal question".  There are a good many reasons to be
concerned about nuclear power (and coal power, and hydroelectric power, and
windmills chewing up birds, etc. etc.), but I find the much-ballyhooed
waste-disposal problem a non-issue when it comes to being for or against
nuclear energy.

Suppose that tomorrow morning at 0900 EST we shut down forever all nuclear
reactors on Earth (perhaps keeping one or two for medical and research
purposes).  What would happen to the existing waste?  Would it become
offended and leave?  Failing that, it seems the problem is with us, nukes
or no nukes.  We HAVE to solve the problem.  By the by, only about half of
this high-level, long-lived waste is from power production if memory serves.
Since there have been no new nuclear plants begun for sever years,
the few plants still a-building are not worth worrying about when it comes
to waste.

I'm not as comfortable with the question of major radiation leaks from a
reactor.  It's encouraging to note that reportable (and often unreported)
foulups happen at commercial sites worldwide on a very frequent basis, but
so far no disaster seriously affecting the general public has been observed.
Even the most pessimistic projections of long-term deaths from Three Mile
Island suggest if we wanted to save lives by banning something, we'd be
loads better off banning Labor Day Weekend.

I repeat:  I am not completely comfortable with nuclear power (or with any
means of power production - I'm not in love with burning up fossil fuel,
building dams everywhere, you name it).  The whole issue needs careful study
and intelligent thought.

What it does NOT need (flame throwers at the ready) is self-appointed
experts on engineering with degrees in phys ed or whathaveyou deciding that
they bygod KNOW what's best for the rest of us and, not content with
cumbersome annoyances like the democratic process and similar, elect to
occupy buildings and lie down in highways and get arrested and generally
play act the role of the REAL martyrs like Ghandi et al who resorted to
civil disobedience as a last resort instead of a hobby.

   (Please note that this is directed at no one on this net.)

   Finally, on fusion power:  Most fusion reactions being studied
emit neutrons which in turn causes transmutation of the walls of the
reactor.  (Neutrons cannot be contained in a "magnetic bottle", of
course, since they are electrically neutral.)  The neutrons themselves
are easy to stop, but the resulting isotopes may be quite dangerous,
depending on the material used for shielding.
   There is an alternative to both fission and fusion, but I confess
I cannot recall much about it save the fact that only a handful of
physicists are working on it, many think it's not practical, but if it
were, it would be essentially radiation free and would make everybody
happy or something.  Seem to recall it involved lithium fusion or
something...