Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!andromeda!argus!ken
From: ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power vs Coal vs Alternatives
Message-ID: <351@argus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 22:02:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: argus.351
Posted: Tue Jul 15 22:02:36 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 04:48:00 EDT
References: <450@meccts.UUCP> <524@gargoyle.UUCP>
Organization: NJ Inst of Tech., Newark NJ
Lines: 79
Xref: watmath net.politics:17378 net.sci:1258

In article <524@gargoyle.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
> [Michael Stein]
> >A problem the "soft energy" advocates have is that they confuse the
> >seperate issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear power.  
> 
> What they do is point out the connections between the two issues.
> How do you think India got its bomb?  
I believe I've already said how India got its nuclear weapon capability.
Why do you continue to ignore it?  To repeat, yet another time, India
got its weapons capability by using RESEARCH reactors, which are far
different than power reactors.  Research reactors are designed far
differently than power reactors.

By ignoring my answer you are using the same technique as Ralph Nader
used several years ago when he was shown proof that nuclear power plants
could not have a nuclear explosion.  Then at the next lecture he said
that they would explode.

> It is absurd to claim there is
> no connection between nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear
> weapons. 
About the only main connection is the fact that they both use uranium
or plutonium.  By analogy, an ancient nerve gas is connected to salt.

> Do you mean to say you'd be perfectly happy to see Qaddhafi
> with nuclear reactors and Libya swarming with nuclear scientists and
> engineers?  Or Khomeini or Assad or your favorite mad dictator?
Frankly I'd rather that they use nuclear explosives than conventional
ones.  Nuclear explosives are far larger, easier to detect, expensive,
and less likely to go off correctly, than conventional explosives.
Furthermore, a lot of conventional explosives is needed to set off
a nuclear explosive, thus further depleting terrorist resources.

And if they do use it we have the perfect excuse for blowing them
off the map.             (:->

> >(Radon gas collects in all homes and is especially
> >prevalent in tightly insulated "solar" homes.)
> Minor point here:  Most of the new energy-efficient homes have a
> well-sealed basement and a vapor barrier inside masonry walls which
> blocks some of the radon.  Some of them also have air-to-air heat
> exchangers which increase ventilation.

Just what are you talking about by "air-to-air heat exchangers" ?

> 
> I would like to recommend some salutary reading for dedicated
> pro-nukers:  
[editing]
> - *We Almost Lost Detroit* by John G. Fuller.  This last is the story
> of the near-meltdown of the Fermi breeder in 1966.  The title is no 
> exaggeration.

The title of that book is such a joke its ridiculous.  And the descriptions
of various scenarios that he writes show that he does not know what he
was talking about.  Yes, I have read that book.  And someone forgot
to write "We Almost Lost New York", due to 2 massive oil fires.


> 
> Richard Carnes

References this time: none.

-- 
Kenneth Ng:
Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey  07102
uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken
soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu
bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet
	     or  ken@orion.bitnet
soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu
(We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming)

Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical, that is
the only planet in the federation that can make that claim"

Savaak: "He's so....human"
Spock: "No one is perfect"