[ RadSafe ] Erratum "There's No Such Thing As Nuclear Waste"

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

Ted Rockwell has a graph in his book, Creating the New World, that shows 

costs up >10 times as regulations increased >10 times. 

 I assumed that costs and regulation would be much less when based on 

it taking >10x exposure to do harm. Apparently many other factors -. 

Is political pretext for self-aggrandizement one that would increase regs and cost? 



I also note George's correction of my assumption that the French and USNavy 

were using efficient reprocessing. Apparently GE has a much more efficient system 

awaiting funding and political approval. 



Howard Long   




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sandy Perle" <sperle at mirion.com> 
To: "HOWARD LONG" <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net> 
Cc: "Radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl> 
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:01:00 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Erratum "There's No Such Thing As Nuclear Waste" 

Never going to happen. No country is increasing dose, and are very efficient. An increase dose allowable would result in significant untold issues and significant cost. Just not going to happen! 

Sandy 
Sent via ATT by Moto Q9h 

Howard said: new reactor construction deregulated to 20 rem/yr exposure levels now evidenced to be beneficial?