# [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change

Dan McCarn hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Tue Mar 5 20:44:33 CST 2013

```Jerry, the experiment at Yucca Mountain was to determine the amount of
water that would be generated from the water of mineralization from various
mineral species as they were heated by the spent fuel.

That,in turn, drove the design parameters to protect the canisters.

Dan ii

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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-----
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Goldin
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:54 PM
> 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
> 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
> 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:
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>

--
Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
```