[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Tue Mar 5 12:38:25 CST 2013
My favorite SNF storage scheme (which I came up with myself) is dry cask
storage at Fort Knox, around the Gold Repository facility. It is
Federally owned land, one of the most secure spots on Earth, fairly
centrally located for reactor facilities in the Eastern half of the
country, not civilian population close enough to be effected by the SNF
in any vaguely realistic scenario, and would actually enhance the
security of the gold (or lack of gold, if you believe certain
politicians).
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
JPreisig at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change
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
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list