[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 438, Issue 1
Ottley, David B (Dave)
David_B_Dave_Ottley at RL.gov
Thu Oct 21 18:46:27 CDT 2010
Substituting "radiation" for "CO2" isn't this like saying, "Temporarily ignoring whether or not radiation is harmful, beneficial or neither - is there anyone on this list that truly believes that putting all that radiation from nuclear reactors into the atmosphere will not, in the long term, have deleterious effects (killing us, causing cancer, turning the air pink, whatever)? Do we all also believe that all these rules to control radiation was a scam designed to make money for one group or another?
Sorry, but I have children and grandchildren who have to live on this rock - how can I, in good conscience, not oppose polluting the ground, water and air?"
Unfortunately, this is just how the majority think about nuclear power and other radiation industries.
CHPRC - Hanford
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marty Bourquin" <Marty.Bourquin at grace.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:28:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
> Temporarily ignoring whether or not the rise in temperature is part of
> the natural cycle or is being caused by man made factors - is there
> anyone on this list that truly believes that putting over 6.2 billion
> (with a B) net tonnes per year of CO2 into the atmosphere will not, in
> the long term, have deleterious effects? (heating , cooling, turning the
> air pink, whatever) Do we all also believe that prohibiting the
> discharging of CFCs into the atmosphere was a scam designed to make
> money for one group or another?
> Sorry, but I have children and grandchildren who have to live on this
> rock - how can I, in good conscience, not oppose polluting the ground,
> water and air?
> Martin W. Bourquin
> Manager - EHS, RSO
> W.R. Grace & Co
> Chattanooga, TN 37406
More information about the RadSafe