[OSM-talk] radioactivity

[Paul Houle]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> no, we shouldn't. But what's so strange about the desire to tag
> nuclear installations? Why not tag all chemical plants? There is a lot
> of benefit in mapping not just "industrial" but also the type of
> industry, be it chemical, automotive, steel, clothing or whatever.
>   
    Antinuclear activists have tried quite often to use open database 
sites as a place to make political statements.  For instance,  there's a 
"Nuclear Reactor" type in Freebase which has just one property:  final 
disposition of waste.  It doesn't have any other attributes such as 
purpose,  thermal power output,  fuel composition,  nothing.

    The waste issue is complex,  but I can tell you one thing.  The 
current LWR extracts only 2% of the energy in it's fuel.  Future 
reactors could extract much more of that:  there's enough energy sitting 
in the spent fuel system in the US to power the country for centuries:  
a closed fuel cycle could put a stop to Uranium mining for generations.  
Yes,  the technology isn't there yet,  but we've still got decades to 
develop it.

    Some kind of hazard marking could be OK,  or some marking for 
industrial sites,  or for power plants as a whole -- and I'm not saying 
that antinuclear activists didn't have a point in the 1970's,  because 
they did.  I think citizens should have input into energy policy 
decisions.  I think there are bright futures for photovoltaic and 
biofuel systems that use waste materials as feedstocks -- in particular 
applications.  I'm all for energy conservation.  However,  if we want to 
keep civilization together under the threats of fossil fuel depletion 
and global warming,  we can't flush an energy source much bigger than 
Saudi Arabia down the drain.