Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!columbia!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: breeder reactors - final comments.
Message-ID: <26500080@inmet>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 09:27:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.26500080
Posted: Wed Sep 10 09:27:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 05:25:21 EDT
References: <517@meccts.UUCP>
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:meccts.UUCP:-51700:inmet:26500080:000:1111
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 10 09:27:00 1986


[pmk@prometheus.UUCP ]
>The big problem we face is that in some ways we are a technologi-
>cally  "undeveloping" nation. If technological downturn continues
>to hold true, nuclear safety is going to become a  very  substan-
>tial  problem.  All the rah-rah bullshit in the world isn't going
>to stop it.

If it holds true, then everything will be a substantial problem,
and disaster is imminent, nuke or no nuke. 

>Another result is that the greatest option for mankind is not one
>we will develop, namely, fusion energy. Our government only fully
>supports the most backward and obsolete of fusion concepts that
>are inherently incapable of being developed into commercial fu-
>sion generators.

Why don't you tell us more about it?

>The making of "quick paper profits" has  the  minds,  hearts  and
>souls  of the investment bankers, and private investment in truly
>innovative technology is DEAD.

Isn't this an overstatement? The subject is crucial (far more
so than the coal/nuke choice), and deserves a treatment in depth.

> Unfortunately, there is no standing still.  

Very true. It's swim or sink.