[ RadSafe ] backscatter dose and CO2 capture
Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
gyf7 at cdc.gov
Sat Oct 30 19:29:13 CDT 2010
I believe Benj has had a little too much of something in his Ben and Jerry's ice cream....
----- Original Message -----
From: jsalsman at gmail.com <jsalsman at gmail.com>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH); Rosen, Jerry C <jcrosen at pitt.edu>; Edmond Baratta <edmond0033 at comcast.net>
Sent: Sat Oct 30 19:02:36 2010
Subject: backscatter dose and CO2 capture
The root of the error is in inconsistent net present value
calculations. For example, the FAA uses an actuarial value of $7
million/person, while the EPA uses a different value to protect people
from accidental death due to floods. But everything is interrelated,
so it all hinges on the extent of health coverage, and we've been
screwing that one up, too. There are a few people with a vested
interest in things not getting any better, e.g., coal and oil miners.
Wind, water, and solar power are much less expensive than all the
alternatives, even if you consider just a small subset of the
externalities. Nuclear, however, will be useful for colonization:
Especially since radiation dose in space is so much worse than under
the atmosphere, we can't afford to launch that much shielding.
What is the overall health risk ratio between x-ray backscatter
scanner systems and vitrification freezers for 100kg organisms?
As for immediate solutions, I recommend: http://dotyenergy.com in particular
More information about the RadSafe