[ RadSafe ] shortage of tech 99

[Maury Siskel]

There seem few real doubts about the influence of anti-nuclear zealotry 
effectively using all possible legal, political, public ignorance, and 
fear measures. One need only recall how many years since a US nuclear 
power plant has been built. Worse yet, consider the prospects -- the 
public is frequently told of the great prospects for a 'resurgence of 
nuclear power'. I submit that we should also not hold our breath -- govt 
leaders keep touting nuclear power but with conditions attached that 
preclude any progress. We are too busy  making wind  by tilting with 
windmills --yessir, sticking with the good ol' days.

.... most recently as in ending the prospects for the new processing 
plant at Piketon Ohio.
Cheers?
Maury&Dog [Maury Siskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com]
=====================
Boby Mathew wrote:

>This is not a good response. Why do not we just admit that Gary is telling the truth.
>Boby
>--- On Wed, 7/29/09, John R Johnson <idias at interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
>
>From: John R Johnson <idias at interchange.ubc.ca>
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] shortage of tech 99
>To: garyi at trinityphysics.com, radsafe at radlab.nl, "Bill Prestwich" <prestwic at mcmaster.ca>, "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov>
>Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 12:37 PM
>
>
>Gary
>
>My response is below. 
>
>You probably know this but others may not. The major medical isotope is Mo-99, the parent of Tc-99m. 
>
>John
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: garyi at trinityphysics.com 
>  To: radsafe at radlab.nl ; Bill Prestwich ; Brennan, Mike (DOH) ; John R Johnson 
>  Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:25 PM
>  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] shortage of tech 99
>
>
>  Bill and John, 
>
>
>  Maybe I'm missing something. Help me understand why I'm wrong. If I apply to build a reactor for medical isotopes (or any other purpose) anywhere in North America, I imagine that an organized and rather nasty effort will be mounted to prevent or delay that reactor from ever being approved. Agree, but not all politicians would. For example, Lisa Raitt (Canadian Federal Minister for Natural Resources) has been quoted as saying it would be "sexy" to be involved with AECL's radioisotope production. If approved, the effort will shift to preventing or delaying construction. If constructed, the effort will shift to preventing or delaying the reactor from ever coming on line.  At every step of the way, any and every tactic that might make the reactor more expensive to finish and operate will be used against me.  At every step of the way, I will be working against the considerable momentum of 40+ years of propaganda. 
>
>
>  That's just history.  That's the main reason why we don't have more reactors, more advanced reactor technology, and more nuclear power.  More to the point, that is the main reason why we don't have at least two or three other reactors on the continent that can produce medical isotopes.  The folks who accomplished all this now call themselves Greens. 
>
>
>  That is my line of reasoning.  I've got an open mind, so let me know how I am mistaken. Please note that my argument does not rely on any recent action by Greens - the last 40 years or so are more than enough anti-nuclear activism to produce the current situation.  I understand that Greens do not gloat over the medical problems they have created, but to me this sudden reticence is like the bus passenger who earnestly wishes that nobody will get hurt, after the fool climbs over the seat, grabs the wheel, and steers your bus off the cliff. 
>
>  I don't think we should think of all "greens" as being equal. I know some so called greens who think that nuclear power can help slow down global warming. 
>
>   
>
>  As you know, AECL designed at replacement (Maple) for NRU before I left Chalk River in 1988 (see the recent Radsafe message by Laszlo Toro). It was approved by their Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NSAC), which included the AECB (the regulators that were replaced by the CNSC). I think that the problems with the Maple reactor should have been fixed by a committee and AECL and CNSC engineers and scientist similar to NSAC. Instead it has been stopped by the AECL and CNSC politicians.
>
>
>
>  -Gary Isenhower 
>
>
>
>
>  On 28 Jul 2009 at 14:06, John R Johnson wrote: 
>
>
>  Radsafers 
>
>
>  I also "live in the country where this is going on" and agree with 
>  Bill. 
>
>
>  Hi Bill! I hope all is well at McMaster. 
>
>
>  John 
>  *************** 
>  John R Johnson, PhD 
>  CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 
>  4535 West 9th Ave 
>  604-676-3556 
>  Vancouver, B. C. 
>  V6R 2E2, Canada 
>  idias at interchange.ubc.ca 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
>
>      
>_______________________________________________
>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: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>  
>