Dr; Scott and Peter, I completely agree that the waste issue is important, very. It is, however, complex and cannot be handled responsibly without addressing not only the science, but also security issues and the public's perceptions. As Feynman might argue, it requires addressing the issues completely, not just with a summary overvie…
Dr; Scott and Peter, I completely agree that the waste issue is important, very. It is, however, complex and cannot be handled responsibly without addressing not only the science, but also security issues and the public's perceptions. As Feynman might argue, it requires addressing the issues completely, not just with a summary overview. That, however, makes a much longer piece than is appropriate for this forum. There is a major study looking at all industrial toxic waste problems that hopefully will be out before the end of next year. Meantime, it's worth looking at the mining, refining, and decommissioning waste associated with just solar panels.
Respectfully, Mr. Budinger, I find your reply unconvincing. To say that there is not room enough to address the primary objection, environmentally and especially politically, seems fairly unpersuasive to me. As for the "yeah, but solar has problems, too" point, there's a term for that sort of rhetorical device: whataboutism. It is of a kind with the "yeah, but Hillary's emails" argument we've heard so often over the past 4 years. I fear that you have not escaped Dr. Stoft's point about Feynman's Cargo Cult science and intellectual honesty, and that makes me wonder about your hidden agenda. I am open to argument and to understanding the issues better, but not to overly simplistic efforts at persuasion.
Dr; Scott and Peter, I completely agree that the waste issue is important, very. It is, however, complex and cannot be handled responsibly without addressing not only the science, but also security issues and the public's perceptions. As Feynman might argue, it requires addressing the issues completely, not just with a summary overview. That, however, makes a much longer piece than is appropriate for this forum. There is a major study looking at all industrial toxic waste problems that hopefully will be out before the end of next year. Meantime, it's worth looking at the mining, refining, and decommissioning waste associated with just solar panels.
Respectfully, Mr. Budinger, I find your reply unconvincing. To say that there is not room enough to address the primary objection, environmentally and especially politically, seems fairly unpersuasive to me. As for the "yeah, but solar has problems, too" point, there's a term for that sort of rhetorical device: whataboutism. It is of a kind with the "yeah, but Hillary's emails" argument we've heard so often over the past 4 years. I fear that you have not escaped Dr. Stoft's point about Feynman's Cargo Cult science and intellectual honesty, and that makes me wonder about your hidden agenda. I am open to argument and to understanding the issues better, but not to overly simplistic efforts at persuasion.