[ RadSafe ] Vermont Yankee leaking tritium --- time to panic(?)

[Maury Siskel]

Hi Steve,
For my taste, a central problem is that the cited 'public' are very 
capable of launching lawsuits and other obstructive behaviors apparently 
for the purpose of denying nuclear power as any general source of 
energy.. In some instances, it must be granted that sincere souls do 
this to preclude harm to the population.

The end result, however, is that energy crucial to the growth of a 
society is denied -- or that vast resources of a society are diverted to 
control global temperature when there is no evidence that such a goal is 
attainable or that .... etc. etc.

I believe these scenarios keep the nation headed very much in a harmful 
direction.
Best,
Maury&Dog
======================
Steven Dapra wrote:

> Feb. 3
>
>         Who is this "public" who is so concerned?  A bunch of aging 
> hippies and ill-informed college students who constitute an 
> infinitesimally small percentage of the general population.  Their 
> chief credential is that they know how to make a lot of noise.  They 
> also excel at guerrilla theater.
>
> Steven Dapra
>
>
> At 01:52 PM 2/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>>
>> You can argue health effects all you want, but that doesn't stop 
>> public concern.
>>
>> The question is not whether the industry is harming the public, but 
>> whether the industry can be trusted to properly manage the technology.
>>
>> BTW:  This is industry policy, see the NEI announcement of it's 
>> groundwater protection initiative:
>> http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newpolicyreleases
>>
>> Bill Lipton
>> doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
>> _______________
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > An almost unique property of Tritium is that it is detectable even 
>> in  miniscule quantities. Somehow there is a tendency, particularly 
>> among  non-technical people, to equate detectability with hazard. 
>> Paradoxically,  tritium, under almost any credible exposure scenario 
>> is essentially  innocuous. Can anyone suggest a credible accident 
>> sequence involving tritium  that might lead to health consequences 
>> worthy of concern?
>> > Jerry Cohen
>> >______________________________
>> > From: "edmond0033 at comcast.net" <edmond0033 at comcast.net>
>> > To: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
>> > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>> > Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 11:02:18 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Vermont Yankee leaking tritium --- time to 
>> > panic(?)
>> >
>> > What do we do about K-40??  How about the difference in exposures 
>> in places  like Denver??  Places in India and Brazil where they have 
>> higher than normal  levels of background?  Is this like the Carbon 
>> dioxide in the atmosphere?  Must we stop breathing?  The more 
>> 'intelligent' these people think they are
>> > , the siller the Reports.
>> >
>> > Ed Baratta
>> >
>> > edmond0033 at comcast.net
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
>> > To: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com>
>> > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl, radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2010 8:54:20 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada 
>> Eastern
>> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Vermont Yankee leaking tritium --- time to 
>> panic(?)
>> >  
>> >  "But in 2005, the National Academy of Sciences concluded after an 
>> exhaustive study that even the tiniest amount of  ionizing radiation 
>> increases the risk of cancer."
>> >
>> >  From the article, the voice of authority as understood by the 
>> public.  Of course, the statement, once made was not carried  to its 
>> logical conclusions.
>> >
>> >  Don Kosloff
>> >  License Renewal
>> >  Oak Harbor Ohio
>> >
>> > ===============snipped==========
>