[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change - and radiophobia

Mon Mar 18 17:37:10 CDT 2013

I reject the implication(s) that calculation models showing the safety of 
the Yucca Mtn. project are sound while those predicting dire consequences 
from climate change make  sense. Both are designed to determine some 
predetermined outcome and are therefore  nonsense. Tell me the answer you 
want and I can easily develop a model to get that answer. No matter how you 
look at it, it isn't science! When doing government sponsored research, you 
would be well-advise to first learn the desired answer, and then get 
it---assuming you wish to get more contracts in the future.
Jerry Cohen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Miller, Mark L" <mmiller at sandia.gov>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>; "'Eric Goldin'" <emgoldin at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:31 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change - and radiophobia

> Amen to that!
>
> IMHO
>
> *        REAL radiation risks are probably "100-1000" lower than our 
> conservative standards imply that they are
>
> *        These overly-conservative standards and general radiophobia lead 
> to grossly over-engineered nuclear facilities
>
> *        This over-engineering grossly inflates the cost of nuclear 
> facilities
>
> *        Inflated costs discourage broader use of a marvelous technology
>
> *        Mankind worldwide suffers unnecessarily because too many 
> resources are frittered away over-designing things...disposal facilities 
> that will prevent a few mrem or microSv in 100,00 - 1 million years 
> ...give me a break!
>
> Etc......
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victor Anderson [mailto:victor.anderson at frontier.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:31 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<mailto:SLGawarecki at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Howard Long wrote:
>
>
>
> "Edward Teller leads our 32,000 scientists, at 
> www.petitionproject.org<http://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 