[ RadSafe ] backscatter dose and CO2 capture
jsalsman at gmail.com
Sat Oct 30 21:48:54 CDT 2010
Thanks, John, for forwarding that. I have to jump through hoops to
get things on RADSAFE these days.
Do you think the people who compiled
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
<gyf7 at cdc.gov> wrote:
> I believe Benj has had a little too much of something in his Ben and
> Jerry's ice cream....
> John Dixon
> ----- 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
> and http://windfuels.com/PDFs/WO2008115933.pdf
More information about the RadSafe