[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Al Tschaeche's latest idea - NOT
Al,
You certainly know how to spur discussion! It's Friday and kinda slow, so
here goes: I think your idea is myopic and is just plain wrong.
I do not think your prediction that "they" will try to make everything
related to energy cost more is valid at all. Advances in wind power, solar
power, and fuel cells are just a few examples of ways of generating energy
that will eventually cost less because of their renewable
pedigree. Research funding for alternate energy has been proportionally
low compared to what nuclear and fossil has been given (anyone from NREL
out there with figures??). Personally, I think we could practically
eliminate the need for gasoline within a generation if research for fuel
cells and alternate fuels are funded aggressively. Of course, the fossil
fuel folks have a little influence with those who dole that funding
out! Fossil fuels are being depleted at a rapid rate. The concept of
sustainable growth has merit and should be considered. Renewable resources
are clearly a good idea to develop. Providing energy (along with
everything else) for 20 billion people in the 22nd century is going to be
very challenging. As resources get more scarce because they were used up,
things will get more expensive because of market forces. It's not the
anti's that are going to be responsible for driving up the costs, it's the
unregulated, profit driven, consume consume consume mentality of our
economic business model that will be responsible. It will be the haves
against the have-nots, something that history has shown is not conducive to
peaceful coexistence. I'm much more concerned about the deregulation (and
consolidation) of the energy sector being responsible for higher prices in
the future than anti-nukes. More comments below:
>I just had a new idea and want to see what y'all think of it. When you
>look at
>the big picture, the anti-everything crowd has an agenda. From my experience
>with them, the agenda is: we need fewer people on earth. They will do
>anything
>and everything they can to forward that agenda.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Over population IS a big problem in the
developing world, no doubt. Are you familiar with the concept of
sustainable growth?
> Getting rid of energy is one
>thing they must do. Making energy cost more is one way of doing
>that. They did
>that with nuclear power in the US.
You seem to lump anti's into one big group. Just because some folks are
anti-nuclear doesn't mean they are anti-social, or anti-religion, or
anti-anything else. Maybe they are pro-sustain ability, pro-ecology,
pro-health (in their mind - not to go into risk or effects of low level rad
here). Quality of life for future generations is very important to some
people, and they question how YOUR generation's practices affect future
generation's resources. When someone comes up with a nuclear process that
doesn't generate so much high-level waste (fusion???), you may get a shot
at support from a wider base.
Now they are after fossil fuels with the
global warming because of man's actions thing.
I'm not sure I can dignify this comment with a response. Do you really
think that all the industrialization and consumption of fossil fuels
DOESN'T have a negative affect on the ecosystem????
>With TENORM they have another
>opportunity to make everything cost more. If expensive regulations are
>imposed
>- in the name of health and safety of course - on mines and other things
>such as
>flying, everything will cost more and people won't be able to consume at the
>current and projected rates.
Since the proposed regs are mostly dose or risk-based, there are few
situations where actual changes are going to take place (outside of the
workplace) due to the control (manipulation?)of the scenarios in the models
by those who will be running them. It's pretty hard to get 15, 25, 30
mrem/y from one source or practice when there are few pathways and little
residence time (I'm generalizing here)! As far as mines, etc., those
workers deserve the same protections as other workers.
Just because someone is anti-nuclear doesn't mean that they want us all to
live in caves (there's the additional NORM exposure to deal with!) :-)
> We are already seeing this in the scrap metal
>situation.
Adding additional radioactivity to consumer products is not a justifiable
practice. I don't object to it on the basis of trivial doses, but as a bad
policy that would be ripe for abuse. The HP community is in my opinion,
honest and credible. But we are suggesting a practice that is ripe for
abuse by others with less stringent values. I haven't personally been to
Eastern Europe and the FSU, but my understanding is that there is a large
black market in radioactive scrap metal over there. I can't condone
legalizing that practice, outside of recycling within the fuel cycle or DOE.
Besides, the market won't accept it. It's a bad idea that has no support
outside of those who are in possession of radioactive scrap metal. ANSI
N13.12 provides new figures for clearance from control of materials,
including TENORM, (NORM is considered background). Time will tell if they
are accepted as de minimus, BRC, or whatever you want to call it. I agree
that there must be a lower limit of regulatory control due to the
increasing ability to measure smaller and smaller quantities. Still, the
scrap thing is a bad precedent - what's next? We can dilute our stockpile
of liquid nerve agents maybe by just putting a couple drops on everyone's
tax forms? Dilution is not the solution to pollution is a bedrock of
environmental policy and should be maintained.
>I predict that there will be a lot of pressure from the anti groups
>for regulation anything remotely related to radiation or energy so as to make
>everything man uses or needs cost more.
I agree with the first part of your statement about radiation, but not the
second. They will oppose it because that's what they believe, right or wrong.
> What do you think? If you agree, how
>do we counter the situation?
We should continue to discuss the issues openly. Promote beneficial uses
such as medical, materials imaging, basic radiation research for positive
uses (not more damn weapons), quality of life improvements. Find some
washed up movie star to be your spokesman (worked for the NRA), start a PR
campaign showing how much radiation is naturally around us. Once people
realize how much NORM they are exposed to, they will have a context to work
from. Stop opposing the cleanup of legacy sites, that is what the people
demand. Start thinking of antis as sensitive people with emotions, and
frame your discussion such as to debunk the base of those emotions, if they
are in fact not true.
Just my 2 cents
Phil Egidi
ORNL/GJ
7pe@ornl.gov
>Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
>
>"Tsurikov, Nick" wrote:
>
> > The question you posted was also asked in my 'TENORM Legislation' report to
> > the TENR Conference in Rio last September:
> > "...The third example of 'legislative inconsistency' is the reluctance of
> > appropriate authorities to apply the same limits for the industry and for
> > the general public... another case is an application of relevant
> regulations
> > for consumer products."
>
>--------------24673AFF39E40CC095D1BC29
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="antatnsu.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Al Tschaeche
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="antatnsu.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:Tschaeche;Al
>x-mozilla-html:FALSE
>org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
>version:2.1
>email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
>title:CEO
>x-mozilla-cpt:;0
>fn:Al Tschaeche
>end:vcard
>
>--------------24673AFF39E40CC095D1BC29--
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html