Re: Ignored consumer goods with Ra-226. (Al's idea)

[Kerembaev@cs.com]

Al and the others,

I do not think there is a way to prove your point, besides, "will live and 
will see" method.
Haven't said that, looking back some of us can see that cost (economy) always 
defined the strategic developments. It is an old struggle between two points: 
Materialism and Idealism. Perhaps, you are right that "environmentalist 
movement" with its idealistic ideas are using the old materialism methods to 
prove its point. And "materialistic" scientists are forgot about their basics 
and fall under the illusion, of being able "somehow" to care across their 
point by supporting idealistic methods. 
One point onto your side. 
I haven't seen YET "an environmentalist" asking nor stop using any electrical 
appliances personally to reduce needs in that "Terrible and Evil" Nuclear 
Power produced electricity.
Not even after the "worst" nuclear disaster in Chernobyl in the areas of 
surrounding the disaster's epicenter.
So I think it is all about the old struggle for the power. One side is using 
any means; idealism and materialism to achieve their goal and the other, 
materialistic by definition, hoping that idealistic methods will help them to 
support their cause. 
Y'all probably have heard that in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Block 
countries Materialism was the official "religion" but "communists" used the 
idealistic methods to support our (their) materialistic cause. Confusing?
Listen more, the United States and Western block "capitalists" having the 
Idealism as an official doctrine supported their cause with "old well known 
materialistic methods"
Well, everybody knows who won. So what is the point?
The point is: Now there is no we or they in the recent convectional 
definition but:
Taking a very recent history as a parallel, looks like "environmentalists" 
with their Idealism by using materialistic methods will win and some of us 
with "very materialistic eductions" but sticking to idealistic methods will 
loose. They know what people are afraid of and they used it to get what they 
want "The Power.........."
Some of us may live until that time, when almost everything will be destroyed 
again and they will call on us to rebuild some of it.
Why to wait?? Let give them that power NOW and see what they will do? As you 
can see that Ukraine with "environmentalists" coming to the power, by using 
the "Chernobyl" fear............keep running and keep running that last Third 
Unit. So they know what people need is a "beef" People do not care about the 
ideas when there is no heat or light in houses. Fear of loosing electricity 
is a real one and it does not based on LNT but it is very well Threshold 
based, you have it or you don't.
So this is my point and I stick to it.
A Nice and Safe weekend to everyone.
Emil.
kerembaev@cs.com


In a message dated 2/4/00 10:33:36 Pacific Standard Time, 
antatnsu@pacbell.net writes:

<< 
 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.  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.  Now they are after fossil fuels with the
 global warming because of man's actions thing.  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.  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.  What do you think?  If you agree, 
how
 do we counter the situation?  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."
  >>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html