[ RadSafe ] "Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear Energy"

Tue Dec 4 10:30:25 CST 2007

Otto, 

I DID NOT WRITE THAT!  I rebutted that statement from John Jacobus who
wrote in on December 1st, 2007 at 12:30 PM, in response to my comment
that I sent on November 26, 2007 at 7:59 AM responding to his statement
from November 22nd at 9:50 AM.  I happen to agree with you and don't
mind being part of the choir to which you preach, but don't blame me for
the need for the sermon.  I don't appreciate being scolded for John's
statement (which I believe he is entitled to make and which I COMPLETELY
disagree with and which I think was completely unfair. 

Roughly here is how it went -

11/21/07 Bob Cherry sends:

Subject opinion article in the New York Times quotes our Bernie Cohen
who researched stories by the New York Times about different types of
accidents between 1974-78 (prior to Three Mile Island):

On an average, there were 120 entries per year on motor vehicle
accidents, which kill 50,000 Americans each year; 50 entries per year on
industrial accidents, which kill 12,000; and 20 entries per year on
asphyxiation accidents, which kill 4,500; note that for these the number
of entries, which represents roughly the amount of newspaper coverage,
is approximately proportional to the death toll they cause. But for
accidents involving radiation, there were something like 200 entries per
year, in spite of there not having been a single fatality from a
radiation accident for over a decade.

Another problem, especially in TV coverage, was use of inflammatory
language. We often heard about "deadly radiation" or "lethal
radioactivity," referring to a hazard that hadn't claimed a single
victim for over a decade, and had caused less than five deaths in
American history. But we never heard about "lethal electricity,"
although 1,200 Americans were dying each year from electrocution; or
about "lethal natural gas," which was killing 500 annually with
asphyxiation accidents. (Bernard Cohen, "The Nuclear Energy Option," pp.
58-59.)

The opinion article:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/do-not-read-this-if-you
-are

-anti-nuclear-energy/

Bob Cherry

11/21/07 Steven Dapra sends:

Perhaps this is the journalists' way of showing us they don't know
enough elementary arithmetic to calculate proportions.  (Can anyone
devise a more plausible explanation?)

Steven Dapra

11/22/07 John Jacobus sends

It is usually more complex than numbers and statistics.  Consider how
many people who are killed by sharks.  Now ask the first 10 people you
meet if they are afraid of sharks.

We are all familiar with cars, electrical outlets, turning on the gas
stoves.  So why should we be afraid of them?

These are not new issues.

11/26/07 helen Bailly (that is ME) sends:

True, but is there a well funded, propaganda supported movement afoot to
eliminate sharks?

12/1/07 John Jacobus sends:

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.

12/1/07 Barbara Herrick sends:

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 ramifications:

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 Valley.

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 head. 

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
<http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/> ) ,  or _www.nirs.org_
(http://www.nirs.org <http://www.nirs.org/> ) , or _www.ieer.org_

(http://www.ieer.org <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 <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.

12/2/07 John Jacobus sends:

So, why are there many license applications for nuclear power plants?

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.

12/2/07 Barbara Herrick sends:

There are no new license applications in California.  The point,
however, was to say that, indeed, anti-nuclear activists have an impact,
and it can be very substantial.  I think it is incorrect to state, as
you did:

"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.)"

There is a very real and substantial influence.

And, while it's true that laws can change.  When the lawmakers receive
most of their information from the anti-nuclear community that obviously
influences the direction of the change.  They are extremely vocal, and
dedicated to a single cause.  Although the nuclear industry may (and
does) provide a contravening opinion, they are viewed as "the bad guys,"
and rare is the politician that has the appropriate knowledge to
adequately evaluate the information, so they go with "the good guys."   

And, at this time, California does purchase approximately 22% of its
power from out-of-state.  Frankly, and this is just my opinion, other
states  should be charging Californians an additional premium on the
power imported to  us because California doesn't appear willing to
accept the costs of adequate in-state power generation.

12/2/07 helen Bailly sends (in response to John Jacobus' question of
12/1/07 before I read Barbara's or John's later postings)

Fair question, no I don't have proof that there is an effort underway to
eliminate nuclear energy; however, I see news of protests and
demonstrations calling for the elimination of nuclear anything on WAY
more places than this list (I don't belong to any other lists like this
- one is enough) CNN, Fox News Network, Bumper Stickers and Tee Shirts
(my favorite being Jackson Hole Wyoming's plea for plutonium free
powder), The Idaho Statesmen, to name just a few.  

12/2/07 helen Bailly sends (after I read Barbara's and John's postings)

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 aren't 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
smile.

 <file:///C:\helen's%20documents\hel-2.JPG>
<file:///C:\Program%20Files\Common%20Files\Microsoft%20Shared\Stationery
\fieruled.gif> 

helen Bailly

Radiation Dosimetry Records Unit

CFA-690                  

Mail Stop 4147

(208) 526-5261

 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.

<file:///C:\helen's%20documents\DOSIMETRY\confidential%20mood%20stamp.jp
g> 

________________________________

From: Otto Raabe [mailto:ograabe at ucdavis.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:42 PM
To: Bailly, Helen A; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] "Do Not Read This If You Are Anti-Nuclear
Energy"

At 09:21 AM 12/3/2007, Bailly, Helen A wrote:

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.

***********************************************
December 3, 2007

No, it is not "constant nit-picking".  Rather, it is an indefatigable
and carefully orchestrated anti-nuclear effort.

For about 20 years I have watched the dedicated and tireless efforts of
a few of anti-nuclear activists to influence members of the California
legislature and even to apparently provide help in writing proposed laws
to hurt the evil nuclear industry. Plans for a very well-designed
low-level radioactive waste facility in the very dry and barren Mohave
Desert were scrapped through political moves by these dedicated folks
that influenced even the Federal government. Then they wrote a
California "radioactive waste plan" that was nothing more than a cover
for blocking any low level waste disposal in California ever. This is
all part of the strategy to choke the evil nuclear power industry. When
Legislative Committee votes were taken on this and many other
antinuclear proposals, the committee majorities consistently sided with
the two or three antinuclear activists who spoke in favor, while showing
apparent disdain for the dozen or more industry representatives and
radiation safety experts who opposed these measures. 

The same small group also tried to get the legislature to fire the
senior members of the California Department of Health Radiological
Safety Branch because they were biased and opinionated as proved by the
fact that so many of them were Certified Health Physicists.

This, of course, is only my personal opinion concerning past events
based on the hours spent I at the California Capitol watching the
processing of bills, doing some testifying and serving on a State
radiation safety advisory committee. 

Otto

Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140 