[ RadSafe ] -Fearmongering by fossil and alternate energy interests -was: RE: Oil Industry-what link?

Busby, Chris C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Thu Jun 23 14:15:34 CDT 2011

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of stewart farber
Sent: Thu 23/06/2011 18:45
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing	List'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] -Fearmongering by fossil and alternate energy interests -was: RE: Oil Industry
CM SPAM detection: spam
References: <C152DD61-4C66-4524-9B30-4DA43F397D14 at iit.edu>

Chris, thanks for posting the link in your message to RadSafe.

The amazingly self-serving, exploitative, and inaccurate article in the link
you provide from oilprice.com opposing nuclear energy is reproduced from a
publication called "Energy Digital". The source publication seems
appropriately named since the article hopes its readers will touch their
toes for what is unfortunately nothing less than a "Digital" on a balanced
assessment of Energy risk considerations and meeting a country's energy

BTW, on the subject of risk of oil vs. nuclear electric generation, the 100
nuclear plants in the US alone have generated 20,000 billion kWh since
nuclear electric production began in the US. Nuclear generation in the US
alone is presently about 800 billion kWh per year. If 20,000 billion kWh of
electricity had been generated in modern max efficiency oil-fired power
power plants it would have required 850 billion gallons of oil  --an amount
equal to 4,100 Gulf oil spills of 206 million gallons each. 

Nuclear power electric generation in the US to date has also avoided the
release of about 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide, if this 20,000 billion
kWh had been generated by fossil fuels. The specific references and
conversion factors from which the above total nuclear generation,
equivalency to oil use vs. Gulf oil spill volume, and CO-2 release avoided
are available on request.

Put the pros and cons of each energy option on the table and compare them.
The oil, coal, and alternate energy industry publications opposing nuclear
electric generation fear any such balanced risk comparison since they can't
approach the minimal risk over time of nuclear electric generation. 

The fact is the US needs energy from all domestic sources it can muster
-nuclear, fossil fuels, alternate energy--but based on an honest evaluation
of costs, local environmental, and global climactic impacts [ OK--real or
perceived], so as to avoid the strategic risks of depending on, and
"protecting", energy supplies from countries that will exploit our energy
dependency leading to war and its human and economic impacts.  Cleverly
concealed fear-mongering by energy interests [ or by many so-called
"environmentalists"  who generate more noise than light opposing nuclear
electric generation based on distortions of facts for their narrow political
and economic advantage] are working against the true interests of our
country and its citizenry.

Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06606
email: SAFarber at optonline.net

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:51 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Oil Industry

The Highly regulated oil industry is now predicting 2 headed babies in



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

Dear Stewart Farber
I posted no link and dont know what you are talking about.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list