[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change

Miller, Mark L mmiller at sandia.gov
Thu Mar 7 13:09:59 CST 2013


1 word - Politics

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen at prodigy.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:17 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change

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Can anyone explain how, over this span on time, such an obviously stupid policy has not been rescinded.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