[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change

Tue Mar 5 12:59:14 CST 2013

Hi, Mike,

First thank you for some interesting comments.  We seem to be saying the
same thing about Yucca Mountain for somewhat different reasons.  My opinion
is that fuel reprocessing is the way to go.  Nuclear transmutation of
radioactive waste is the answer to the radioactive waste problem.

About climate change.  I still have not heard a good answer to my
observation about past levels of CO2 and direct contribution of CO2 by
industry, cars, etc.  The mania of reducing CO2 emission levels does not
address the real problem.  You have stated the solution partially.
Elementary school science teaches us that plants absorb CO2 and give off
oxygen.  Deforestation is a large part of the issue.  The solution is to
plant more flora such as trees.  This is not the simplistic solution that
plays well in the press.  I have read downright silly editorials calling for
the reduction of carbon in gasoline and diesel fuel.  Hello, have these
idiots forgotten basic chemistry?  Reduction of harmful emissions from the
use of fossil fuels is not the same as reduction of CO2.  For those who
really want to go to a carbon free fuel cycle, then burn hydrogen in your
car.  Fact is that all internal combustion engines can run on hydrogen gas.
Its a matter of the fuel to air ratio.  There are two problems with using
hydrogen.  The first is that it is currently expensive to produce hydrogen
and second is the storage issue.  Once those two engineering problems are
solved, then any IC engine can run on hydrogen and the oxygen in the air.
Fuel cells while interesting are unnecessary.

Now, about all those nasty storms and whatnot.  The Earth is a violent
place.  Sadly, people can and will die as result of bad weather.  The human
race needs to learn to deal.  The current changes may or may not be human
induced.  Personally, I think climate changes outside "normal" are a
combination of natural causes (think solar cycles for one) and human factors
such as deforestation.  We can to some extent make some changes to mitigate
weather and such.  However, humans must learn to cope with bad weather.
Sorry, but the world is not a safe place.  BTW what is the increased
radiation dose due to CO2 on a PPM basis?

Victor

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:30 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change

Hi, Victor.

First, Yucca Mountain:  From an engineering point of view, it was entirely
workable and completely unnecessary.  The best aspect, in my opinion, is
that the fuel would be easily recoverable, after any length of storage
(unlike the Waste Isolation Project, where the salt closes in on whatever
you put down there).  The longer people wait before retrieving the fuel, the
easier it is to deal with, until you reach a point in a couple hundred years
where it is so easy it can't get easier.  Unfortunately, the various
politicians have messed it up to the point where it is politically undoable.
Fortunately, Yucca Mountain is just one solution to a problem that has
several better ones, so perhaps we can do better.  

As far as climate change goes, I don't recall anyone seriously talking about
Earth becoming like Venus, though studying Venus is what brought about an
understanding of "greenhouse gasses".  But it doesn't take something that
dramatic to produce catastrophe.  Change in the heat balance changes weather
patterns, and that is all that is needed for very bad things to occur.  If
the Monsoons are late, people go hungry.  If they shift by a thousand
kilometers, people drown in one place, and die of starvation in another.
Around the world the agriculture and livelihoods of much of humanity depends
on reasonably predicable weather.  Climate change, man-caused or natural, is
a bad thing.  And it will happen.

On the bright side, almost everything proposed as ways to lessen climate
change are worth doing in their own right.  Stopping deforestation is an
outstanding idea, whether you believe in climate change or not.  Decreasing
waste in electricity production, distribution, and use is an outstanding
idea, that improves the economy even more than the environment.  Not dumping
crap into the air has so many good things attached to it that they are hard
to list.  Shifting energy policy from huge centralized sources, in foreign
and/or corporate hands to decentralized production supplying smaller,
localized loads has massive national security benefits, as well as being
great for the economy and the environment.  

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Victor Anderson
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:31 PM
To: 'Eric Goldin'; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList'
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