[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change

Tue Mar 5 12:31:03 CST 2013

RADSAFE,

      I think Yucca Mountain would be a far better  place to store spent 
nuclear fuel than around each Nuclear
power plant.  Getting the spent fuel there is another matter.   Still, 
getting the fuel there is do-able, and
the money for shipping might already have been collected.???  Sounds  like 
a Win/Win for the
US Economy???

     Joe Preisig

In a message dated 3/5/2013 1:04:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jjcohen at prodigy.net writes:

Hmmmm.  6000 ppm, 70,000,000 years ago. I wonder who made the measurement 
and
what  instrumentation was used?
As I recall, at Yucca Mtn., the DOE spent much  $$$$ to determine the 
effect 
of decay heat on the
surrounding rock. I  could have saved them the expense by telling them that 
the
temperature  would increase, but why would they take my word for it?
Jerry  Cohen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Victor Anderson"  <victor.anderson at frontier.com>
To: "'Eric Goldin'"  <emgoldin at yahoo.com>; "'The International Radiation 
Protection  (Health Physics)MailingList'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent:  Monday, March 04, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate  change

Good Afternoon,

One inconvenient fact; 70 million  years ago carbon dioxide levels were 
about
6,000 ppm.  The earth did  not change into a "hot house" planet like Venus.
Life is still very  sustainable.  So what if the global temperature is
rising.  Go  look at number for human generated carbon dioxide emissions and
divide it  my the mass of the atmosphere. You come out with a number in the
range of  20 ppm.  (I triple dare you).  This simple exercise does not  
square
with the doom and gloom predictions.  Can someone please tell  the truth for
once?

Now about Yucca Mountain.  Placing spent  fuel bundles underground is indeed
safe.  The problem is that 50% of  each bundle is useable fuel.  That has to
do with the way nuclear  reactors work.  (No, the used fuel stored in Yucca
Mountain can't go  critical; wrong geometry for one thing.)  So, my big
objection to  Yucca Mountain is that we are throwing away billions of 
dollars
of  perfectly good fuel.  The United Stated should be reprocessing all  of
that fuel.  Proliferation of nuclear weapons is a pure bullshit  argument.
The United States already is a nuclear power.  By  reprocessing the used
fuel, we would be turning in into a useable product  and the radioactive
material left could easily be made into compact, easily  disposed packages.
Ultimately, the radioactive waste could be transmuted  into very short lived
radioactive materials that decay to inert materials  in a very short time.
DOE is working on transmutation.  Its really an  engineering problem having
to do with getting costs down so that is  competitive with burial.  Our
problems with using nuclear energy to  make electricity has more to do with
politics and flawed thinking than  anything else.  The accident at Fukushima
was about as bad as it can  get.  Number of deaths from radiation: ZERO.
Yes, I am including the  hypothetical cancer deaths from the low radiation
levels outside the  plant.  I want to see the bodies with the toe tags that
say, "Died  from radiation induced cancer due the Fukushima nuclear
accident."  No  one will be able to do that, because that are not there and
won't  be.

Victor

-----Original Message-----
From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]  On Behalf Of Eric Goldin
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:54 PM
To:  radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate  change

Thanks for some rational thought Susan. I always wonder about  those who
accept computer models showing the safety of Yucca Mountain and  reject the
computer models showing climate change. Ya can't have your cake  and eat it
too . . . . Eric Goldin, CHP

te: Sun, 3 Mar  2013 23:56:05 -0500

From: S L Gawarecki  <slgawarecki at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate  change
To: RadSafe  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CABtrgkVhxvYFu8LXxeTT_RkSGcte2_9nccH5AG2jDEOmZEXJzA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Howard,

How many of these  scientists are CLIMATE scientists?

Think about how many scientists with  the Union of Concerned Scientists are
convinced that nuclear power can  never be safe, that any level of radiation
exposure will cause cancer,  etc.

Scientists taking positions outside of their field are not much  better at
judging the pertinent technical issues than the informed lay  person.
Moreover, they are not immune from having political and social  agendas
themselves.

And if you reject global warming, I can send  numerous links that
demonstrate the accelerated melting of mountain  glaciers, ice caps, and sea
ice over the past 40 or so  years.

Regards,*
**Susan Gawarecki*

ph: 865-494-0102
cell:  865-604-3724
SLGawarecki at gmail.com

Howard Long wrote:

"Edward  Teller leads our 32,000 scientists, at www.petitionproject.org
with  conclusive data backing REJECTION of the selective, global tax hoax
of  global cooling, global warming or climate  change."

------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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  

_______________________________________________
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