[ RadSafe ] "Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear Energy"
Bailly, Helen A
Helen.Bailly at icp.doe.gov
Mon Dec 3 11:21:05 CST 2007
John, that's not very fair, you asked:
Do you have proof that there is an effort to eliminate nuclear energy?
I see a constant nit-picking effort that is perceived to have influence
beyond its real influence. (Most of the crying about anti-nuclear
influence is on list like this.) I also see power companies recognizing
the economic advantages of supplying energy using nuclear power.
Barbara gave you 6 examples of anti-nuke funded activities intended to
eliminate nuclear energy that had an effect, negative in my opinion on
nuclear energy (among other things).
Then you ask:
So, why are there many license applications for nuclear power plants?
Laws can and changed...
That doesn't follow for me, just because there are efforts to eliminate
nuclear energy doesn't mean there are efforts to expand and improve it
as well. They are not mutually exclusive. Thankfully
Life is short - Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love
truly! Laugh uncontrollably!... And never regret anything that made you
Radiation Dosimetry Records Unit
Mail Stop 4147
P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
This message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and are solely
intended for the specified recipient and may contain confidential or
privileged information. This information is confidential. If you are
not the intended authorized recipient of this information, you are
hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that
any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based
on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail, and permanently delete the original message.
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of John Jacobus
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 7:37 AM
To: BLHamrick at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear
So, why are there many license application for nuclear
Laws can and changed. Consider all the opposition to
the WIPP in New Mexico.
If Californians are not willing to build nuclear power
plants (and I assume coal due to pollution concerns),
then they should be willing to pay for electrical
power from other states. Economics and technology
are the driving forces.
--- BLHamrick at aol.com wrote:
> Yes, I see proof that there is an effort to
> eliminate nuclear power. It is
> a coordinated, reasonably well-executed effort,
> which has had the following
> 1. In 1976 resulted in a law in California
> prohibiting the new construction
> of a Nuclear Power Plant until there was a permanent
> disposition option for
> spent fuel (i.e., Yucca Mountain).
> 2. In 1992 resulted in Congress effectively
> "rescinding" the NRC's 1990
> "Below Regulatory Concern" (BRC) Policy.
> 3. In 1999 resulted in Governor Davis refusing to
> appeal an adverse
> decision (against the State) in Court to compel the
> federal government to transfer
> land for the development of an LLRW facility at Ward
> 5. In 2002 resulted in a law that would prohibit any
> future development of
> an LLRW facility at Ward Valley, and essentially any
> shallow-land burial in
> the State.
> 6. In 2004 resulted in EPA abandoning efforts to
> examine alternative
> disposal options (including free release) of very
> low activity wastes (i.e., such
> as those routinely released by licensed RM
> facilities using the old Regulatory
> Guide 1.86, or the newer NUREG 1556 series), and in
> 2005 resulted in NRC
> abandoning a renewed effort to codify the existing
> release criteria (i.e., BRC
> Redux). Both agencies cited "higher priorities" as
> a reason for abandoning
> the efforts, but I watched the efforts fail
> close-up, and, in my opinion,
> "higher priorities" was essentially a euphemism for
> there's too much heat from the
> anti-nuclear contingency (if you have a chance,
> review the public comments
> on these rulemaking efforts - thousands of form
> letters, all saying something
> like "don't de-regulate radioactive waste," for
> both rulemakings.
> And, these are just a few of the things I'm familiar
> with off the top of my
> All of these efforts are developed and supported by
> groups that are
> virulently anti-nuclear. They do not make a secret
> of that. Indeed, they advertise
> it. See, e.g., _www.committeetobridgethegap.org_
> (http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org) , or
> _www.nirs.org_ (http://www.nirs.org) , or
> (http://www.ieer.org) .
> In 2006, a "report," financed by the California
> legislature to the tune of
> $150,000 was published at _www.ssflpanel.org_
> (http://www.ssflpanel.org) . I
> mentioned this last week, but seriously, check it
> out. If you think they have
> no influence, you try asking a State Legislature
> for $150,000 to produce
> what is, in my opinion, a grossly unprofessional
> and non-scientific report, and
> then have the nerve to pass it off in the press as
> a serious report by a
> panel of experts.
> These people are not amateurs. At least a few
> appear to make their entire
> living at this. And, they are very effective
> influencing technologically
> unsophisticated legislators.
> Barbara L. Hamrick
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it
takes to sit down and listen." -- Sir Winston Churchill
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe