[ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Thu Aug 27 11:58:22 CDT 2009

Hi, Franz.  

There is a certain freedom in not having any desire to climb further up the career ladder:  I look at issues like an engineer, not a manager.

I believe that it is important to consider stochastic effects when doing risk analysis.  I also believe that sometimes the quality of the data will never (or at least, not in soon enough) be good enough to give reliable numbers, so sometimes you have go with a qualitative "feel".  

I reject, however, the common tactic of using stochastic "calculations" using "conservative" assumptions, to drive the result so as to support the desired outcome.  Some of the assumptions I've seen used by one side or the other on different issues include (1) civilization collapsing, the art of reading lost, and even legends about Hanford lost, within the next 200 years, (2) The person most effected by a facility discharging radioactive material to the sewer is getting ALL of his drinking water from that sewer outfall (NOT, mind you, just the sewer downstream at the next manhole) and (3) The Inland Sea will reform, connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico.  The recent stipulation that Canada's deep geologic repository must be able to handle a two kilometer ice sheet on top of it; an event that causes ALL of the people of the region to migrate south and ends Canada as a country, is another example.  

As a rule, I am far less concerned about hypothetical people in the distant future doing something stupid than I am about real people, with real families, here now, trying to get what most people throughout history have wanted; To live their lives free from want and fear, to see their children grow to honorable, productive adulthood, and to hold their get to hold their grandchildren before they die.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Franz Schönhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer at chello.at] 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:16 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Mike,

I gratulate you for your boldness to distribute your opinion, which might be contrary to "mainstream US politics", but surprisingly not to RADSAFE comments. 

You very well described the difference of people being killed immediately and people killed "probably" decades later, which never was and still is not sure because there is a high statistical possibility that they will survive many decades. 

How should the stochastic effects be determined?  

I fully agree that the question of landmines is the by far more important question referring to damage - loosing live, limbs, sight etc. How can this be compared to any hypothetical(!!!) DU damage?????? 

Why are always nuclear dangers put forward, when there are by far more dangers present by coventional threats????????

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 20:31
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Dan,

Please do not take anything in my post as minimizing the effects, short or long term, of landmines, as that certainly was not my intention.
Clearly, something that kills and injures immediately has HUGE long term effects (indeed, I do not discount the impact of fragments of DU in the bodies of people caught in near-misses, though that is not the focus of the anti DU crowd).  When someone looses a limb to a mine the effect echoes through their life, and the lives of any children they may have, and all who care for them.  In intention was to point out that the immediate and acute aspects of landmine should make them a higher priority than DU for anyone who is prioritizing hazards based on risk, rather than some other criteria (like the US Military can be blamed).

Landmines were bad enough when they were (mostly) restricted to military organizations using them against other military organization.  For decades, however, they have been used more and more randomly, often without apparent interest in what "side" of a conflict the person eventually sets it off might be on.  I believe that the US should support the ban on landmines on moral and practical grounds, either of which is sufficient. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:20 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Dear Mike:

Anecdotal Experience on Long-term Effects of Mines and IEDs: 

Having had friends die or become re-injured from their wounds 2-3 decades following injury by mines, I would say that the effects are long-term as well. As shrapnel fragments dislodge from bone, they have a tendency to re-emerge with resulting injury to soft tissue.  One lost a leg years later when a bony growth in his femur around a piece of shrapnel caused it to break. Another died from peritonitis when his colon was cut by a piece of shrapnel dislodged from his pelvis. Another was more benign when a fragment emerged from his foot while he was taking a shower.  All suffered emotional and psychological scarring as a result of their injuries.

My next-door neighbor in France lost both legs and suffered grievous bodily injury while attempting to disarm a mine intended only to cause mayhem among people in a village in Iraq.  He was, of course, wearing full body armor.
After 15 reconstructive surgeries and 4 years hence, he still faces significant risks from the several fragments still in his body.  His job in Iraq as part of the French military presence was to remove mines and IEDs intended to kill and maim civilians. These devices were set by Iraqi militias with no regard to the rules of war and intended only as instruments of terror.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
7 Likely Place
Santa Fe, NM 87508-5938
+33.(0).6.47.86.05.25 (Mobile - France)
+33.(0).9.70.44.04.03 (Skype - France)
+1-505-240-6872 (Skype - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:18
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Between landmines and DU, the landmines are clearly the higher risk issue.  The effects are near term and acute, as opposed to long term and chronic (discounting the nearly magical claims put forward by the anti-DU crowd).  DU is either in chunks, which are easy to find and safe to clean up, or combustion products, which become more dispersed over time, decreasing in concentration, and hence risk.  Landmines are often intentionally difficult to find and dangerous to remove.  It is true that the activity of the DU will remain constant on any timescale useful for planning, and landmines will decrease in number by being cleared, set off, and chemical deterioration, but it is entirely possible that mines will still be killing and maiming people in Iraq 50 years from now.  

On the other hand, none of the landmines were set by the US Military (with possible exception around some of the bases, in fields designed to be removed as part of the eventual pull out).  For many people, this makes landmines in Iraq of no interest. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:34 AM
To: maurysis at peoplepc.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Hi John,

You are quite right that Maury's referenced article did not support his claim of zealots avidly blocking new nuclear power plants.  That article was really an Iranian DU propaganda piece meant to create social guilt in the US for political leverage.

But Maury's implied claim is nevertheless accurate.  If you need other articles that do support his claim, I'll be happy to post a few.  

Now that we've tidied up that point, can you please clarify your use of the phrase "uncontroversial and undeniable".  It seems silly to ask, but are you in fact refering to the article cited by Maury, the Iranian propaganda piece?  If so, do you really think the article is "uncontroversial and undeniable"?

Thanks,
-Gary
--------------------------------
Gary Isenhower, M.S.
Trinity Physics Consulting
713-690-3020

On 25 Aug 2009 at 6:14, john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com wrote:

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

Well, I followed the link to see if I could get a look at those avid new nuclear plant blockers, and I saw exactly nada. Just some relatively old stuff about how all the DU ordnance loosed on Iraq is still a problem, with a kicker toward the end noting that Iraq still has a lot of land mines strewn about.

How, exactly do you make the leap from these uncontroversial and undeniable points of fact to "avidly blocking new nuclear power plants?"

In fact, there was no connection to nuclear power in the article at all until you just made one. I'm not sure that helps the cause.

John Gumnick, CHP
RP Tech Manager
Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Station
Phone: 815-415-2703
john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Maury Siskel Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:13 AM To:
radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

If any think anti-nuclear zealotry has diminished or died, rest assured; they are alive, well, and avidly blocking new nuclear power plants over the globe. Maury&Dog  (Maury Siskel
maurysis at peoplepc.com)

===========================
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=104356&sectionid=351020201

"Radioactive US weapons taking toll in Iraq Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:14:18 GMT

Years after the US attacks on Iraq, people in the Persian Gulf state are suffering form the consequences of radioactive contamination caused by the use of depleted uranium.

Iraq's Environment Minister, Narmin Othman Hasan, said Monday that depleted Uranium (DU) weapons used by US-led troops against Iraq during the1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion still blight the country.

Othman Hasan said the use of super-tough weapons by the US-led forces had a devastating impact on the nation and has become a serious environmental challenge since they have contaminated several parts of the country. ..." ---------------snipped, see link for complete
article------------ _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list