[ RadSafe ] Rational Thought

[Busby, Chris]

Gardening and Golf
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
Sent: Wed 05/10/2011 02:37
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Rational Thought
 
Oct. 4

         Sternglass, Gould, and Mangano are charlatans.  Other than 
your own literary output do you have a "referenced study" for any of 
your claims?  Of course not.

         "I have," "I have" --- Is there anything you *haven't* done?

Steven Dapra


At 12:35 PM 10/4/2011, you wrote:
>The disposal of the waste and the cost of this must surely be part 
>of any efficiency of the process to generate electricity. The 
>efficiency of a electricity generation process must be of the form:
>
>(Price of Energy generated over the lifespan of plant)/ (real costs 
>including health effects for all time of waste and uranium tailings, 
>mining and refining uranium fuel, isotope separation, building, 
>operating, fueling, and disposal of waste and decommissioning)
>
>It is not a political matter. It is straight economics or if you 
>like physics, work put in / work taken out.
>
>You could do the same for coal. I dont know where you got your 
>figures for cancers near a coal fired plant, but I have examined the 
>cancer deaths near one coal fired plant and they are no different 
>from expected. Do you have a referenced study?  There are no child 
>cancers near coal fired plants but there certainly are near nuclear 
>plants (e.g. Sellafield, KiKK Germany). The US put  the opportunity 
>cost of a child cancer at 1 million dollars. I have shown 
>statistically significant increases in cancers, particularly breast 
>cancer downwind of two nuclear plants in the UK and Sternglass and 
>Gould and Joe Mangano have published results showing the same in the 
>USA downwind of all nuclear plants in the USA using County 
>data.  These results are in the peer review literature. I have also 
>found increases in infant mortality downwind of one nuclear plant in the UK.
>Im not saying that coal plants are great. We need to have less 
>electricity generation generally, it is very wasteful. And I agree 
>that coal mining is a nasty business which kills the miners in many 
>ways. But wind power is great. Something for nothing. And solar 
>power also. The storage problem is easily soluble. Another way is 
>compressed air and turbines. Very efficient. You compress air into 
>cylinders and recover it by turbine generation. There is no dQ/T loss.
>
>Sincerely
>Chris

[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