[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change
Jerry Cohen
jjcohen at prodigy.net
Wed Mar 6 20:16:48 CST 2013
It has been over 30 years ago that president Carter established the "no
reprocessing" policy.
Can anyone explain how, over this span on time, such an obviously stupid
policy has not been rescinded.
Jerry Cohen
----- Original Message -----
From: <JPreisig at aol.com>
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:31 AM
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