Re: Ignored consumer goods with Ra-226.

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

It is difficult to counter somebody distributing his ideas as brilliant as
Al....


>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. 

No, they just feel uneasy and they distribute their feelings. They do not
believe anything that the "authorities" tell them, might it be justified or
not. It is my sincere believe, that in many cases the distrust is justified
- unfortunately. Knowing of too many things happening in the past, I feel
some sympathy for these feelings. I do not feel sympathy when they ignore
facts, which have been brought to their attention from experts. But who is
an expert? Greenpeace has a lot of "experts" acknowledged by international
mass media. (What about an accreditation of experts by TV stations and
other mass media????) I do not really know whether I am kidding or whether
this has already been done - think of Gofman and others. They have since
long been "certified" by the mass media. TV stations do not care whether
the "expert" (from Greenpeace) is somebody who has just finished his or her
studies of chemistry or physics because they did not make it after one year
of trial or a Professor (not a Greenpeace supporter), who had been working
in a certain field for 35 years. Their opinions are quoted as a kind of 1:1
probability opinion. What about politicians? I quote a saying of a German
politian: A politician becomes an expert in a field as soon as he
distributes an opinion on this field.

To have fewer people on earth is not only a goal of the persons you distain
and is of course against the believe of the Roman Catholic Church, for
which I thought only few supporters existed in the US. And this opinion is
not related to energy, but rather to wealth, health and other very
diffferent conditions. 

  Making energy cost more is one way of doing that.  

The problem of making fire to cook a soup is not related to the questions
adressed by you. 

The question of nuclear power is nothing to be discussed concerning the
poorest countries. It is an illusion to believe that cheap energy will
solve the problems of developing countries. 

I will go so far, to state that this is the typical opinion of ignorant and
unexperienced persons from developed countries, giving "good" advices to
underdeveloped ones. They would need several years of practical experience
to find out about the needs for these countries and then they would find
out about the basic needs of the population´, which sure it not nuclear
power. It seems that projects to help underdeveloped countries have taken
up such criteria already many years ago. I would never support the erection
of a nuclear power plant in a developing country, because simply this would
ignore the needs of a developing country. But I would consider a donation
for implantation of a pump to supply a community with fresh water. 

>
>global warming because of man's actions thing.  With  TENORM they have
another
>opportunity to make everything cost more.  

Who is considering this in any developing country? Nobody. TENORM is
something for saturated developed countries, which have no other problems
and try to find jobs for nuclear physicists in order to avoid payment for
unemployment, but not for areas where people may die at the age of 30 or 40
from various diseases which could be cured by medicine of a few cents cost. 



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. 

I do not feel that "consuming" is the only goal of mankind. I need not have
exotical fruits (whether they are irradiated or not) at any time of the
year. I enjoyed Hawaii, Brasil, Utah, Arizona, Australia, China, Japan, but
I think that I would have survived without going there. If thinking of the
living conditions in the majority of countries, where people might die from
malnutrition, these trips and their costs are not justified. I probably
should feel bad about these travels, but I do not. Nevertheless I think
that I have to keep up to a certain level. Do not promote these living
conditions as a kind of a standard, which has to be kept.

 We are already seeing this in the scrap metal
>situation.  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.  

Until now we seem to have survived without recycling contaminated scrap
metal. Do we have now to allow recycling of this material to make recycling
companies happy and profitable? Definitely: No. 

What do you think?  If you agree, how
>do we counter the situation?  

I think I made it clear - no, I do not agree. 

I final remark: I do hope that Greenpeace does not regard your message
being representative for the "nuclear ones".

Franz



Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
Fax.: same number
mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html