Re: Al Tschaeche's latest idea - NOT

[Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

At 03:10 PM 2/4/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
>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.

You'd probably be happier with the results of such a plan if you didn't
educate the public. Once they come to understand that radiation levels such
as those found all over the planet are not, in fact, eradicating life
everywhere, they will probably start to question spending gazillions of
dollars to keep trivially small quantities of radioactive material from the
human environment, and why the power plants were closed and electric bills
went up to compensate, and so on and so on. If you follow a plan based on a
hazard level that doesn't really exist and then educate the public about
the actual hazard level, you'll need to be prepared with an awfully good
explanation.

You seem to take both side of the issues - the hazards aren't really as
terrible as they are portrayed, but we might as well give in and control
things as if it's true anyway? Why? Because the anti's have noble
ambitions? It's true that there are good souls who believe we'd be better
off without nuclear power. It's also true that there are good souls who
believe we'd be better off without coal-burning power. And another group
opposes hydroelectric because of the environmental damage behind the dams.
And wind power because of the birds that are killed (many, many, birds).
And solar because of the horribly toxic material used in the manufacture of
solar voltaics. And against harnessing geothermal because it intrudes on
park lands and wilderness they want protected. There's a well-intentioned
group opposed to every form of electric generation developed or postulated
- the only accommodation we could offer them all is worldwide darkness,
which we know isn't going to happen. Why pick just those opposing nuclear
to appease?

And in case you're interested, following your advice wouldn't solve the
waste storage problem anyway - if all the reactors were to shut down
tomorrow and close up forever, we still have to find a long term storage site.

Bob Flood
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
bflood@slac.stanford.edu
(650) 926-3793

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