[ RadSafe ] Real vs. imaginary risks.

Fri Dec 30 15:17:28 CST 2011

It is a genuine obligation of government to protect citizens against risks to 
life and well-being. However, this effort should apply to actual risks, as 
opposed to perceived, or imaginary risks. For example, a sizable fraction of our 
population fear attack by bogeymen during their sleep (these are generally 
people under 10 years old). Since there is no physical evidence supporting the 
actual existence of bogeymen, no effort is made to protect against them.
Unfortunately, in the field of nuclear power production, billions of dollars 
have been expended, to protect us against radiation bogeymen. The Yucca Mountain 
project is a monument to this illusion.
Safe management and disposal of nuclear waste would be a relatively easy and 
inexpensive  proposition if the effort could be reststricted to protection 
against actual, as opposed to imaginary risks.

Jerry Cohen

________________________________
From:"franz.schoenhofer at chello.at" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
To:The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent:Fri, December 30, 2011 10:03:51 AM
Subject:Re: [ RadSafe ] Forwarded to the list: Indian Point Licenseextension.

Jeff,

The risks you describe are not at all restricted to nuclear power. Ever heard of 
landslides, inundations, tornados? You as an American citizen should know much 
better than me! 

So what? The human race is subject since millions of years to all kind of 
"environmental" impact and especially disasters. Surprisingly it survived until 
now.....

---- Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu> schrieb:
> You have to design systems so that you can react and deal with an unanticipated 
>events. 
>
> 
> You cannot design in protection from even all anticipated events. For example, 
>we know that at some point a large body from space will hit the earth, we know 
>that Yellowstone will erupt again. These are events so large in impact that they 
>protection from these events cannot be designed in. 
>
> 
> You either accept the risk in power generation or you do not. 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> On Sep 30, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Steven Dapra wrote:
> 
> > Dec. 30
> > 
> >        "every possibility"?
> > 
> >        Given the limitless imaginations and the lurid fantasies of the 
>anti-nukers I suspect this could become an exquisitely long list.
> > 
> >        Have you examined all the possibilities of the dangers that go along 
>with driving your car?  Elephant gets loose from the circus, wanders across the 
>road while you're rushing to the reactor in an emergency response.  You 
>broadside the elephant, killing it; and a band of crazed PETA members wielding 
>pitchforks and staves descends on you. . . .
> > 
> > Steven Dapra
> > 
> > 
> > At 10:19 AM 12/30/2011, you wrote:
> >> It's what you don't think about that gets you.  While Indian Point won't
> >> have a 130 m  (I'm trying to go metric.) tsunami, I'm not confident that
> >> there's some other unanalyzed accident sequence that will cause major
> >> problems.  The power reactor major incidents and near misses, e.g., Browns
> >> Ferry fire, TMI, Davis Besse vessel failure, etc.) were all unanticipated.
> >> How can we be sure that we've looked at every possibility?  A major release
> >> from IP would be a disaster for millions of people.  I agree, it's not
> >> funny.
> >> 
> >> Bill Lipton
> >> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 10:40 PM, Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Dec. 30
> >> >
> >> >        I realize it's not funny.  It seemed to me you were invoking the
> >> > China syndrome in jest, and I responded in kind.
> >> >
> >> >        A 400 foot tsunami does not fall within the realm of "opinion."  A
> >> > claim like this bespeaks someone who is utterly out of touch with the
> >> > rational world.
> >> >
> >> > Steven Dapra
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At 10:52 PM 12/29/2011, you wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steven et al,
> >> >> It's really not funny. I think the majority of the public actually
> >> >> believe the
> >> >> horror scenario of a "China syndrome" is actually possible.
> >> >> Unfortunately, so do
> >> >> many Washington bureaucrats. Some other "possibilities" that have 
>actually
> >> >> received serious consideration in siting studies include, falling
> >> >> airplanes,
> >> >> meteor impact, and people actually spending their entire life living at
> >> >> the site
> >> >> boundry at the center of any and all downwind release trajectories. My
> >> >> favorite
> >> >> occured at the siting hearings for the San Onofre Power Plant. According
> >> >> to one
> >> >> witness, his seismic analysis indicated that the plant could  be hit by 
a
> >> >> 400
> >> >> foot high Tsunami. Such an occurence would make the Fukushima event seem
> >> >> trivial
> >> >> in comparison. Of course, in such an event, everyone living between Los
> >> >> Angelas
> >> >> and the Mexican border would likely drown to death, buy the really 
>serious
> >> >> consequence might be the release of some I-131, deadly Plutonium, and
> >> >> maybe even
> >> >> the terrible Depleted Uranium. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, 
no
> >> >> matter
> >> >> how absurd, but what law says that it must be taken seriously.
> > 
> > [edit]
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> > 
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
>RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > 
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
>http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
>RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
>http://health.phys.iit.edu

--
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu