Re: Ignored consumer goods with Ra-226.

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Franz Schoenhofer wrote:

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

Gee, thanks, Franz.

> >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.

Unless you have had the experience I have with the antis, I can see why you might
say that.  I have been intimately involved with the antis since 1968 and know from
my experience that those who lead the anti movement have a clear agenda (that, by
the way, has little to do with safety).  The leaders get others to agree and those
others know nothing about the true agenda.  The others do feel uneasy, but most of
them, when they hear our side, are rational enough to see past the propaganda of
the leaders and put nuclear risks in perspective.  Of course there are some of the
others who adopt the leader's position and absolutely won't change their point of
view.  Those I just give up on.  But, in my experience, the ratio of the latter to
the former is more than 1 to 10,000.  The latter are just more vocal.

> think of Gofman and others. They have since
> long been "certified" by the mass media.

How come there have been no "certified by the mass media" experts on our side?
Happily there are getting to be some now.

> To have fewer people on earth is not only a goal of the persons you distain

I don't "disdain" the antis.  I hate and despise them (their leaders only, not the
sheep) for liars and fear mongers.  IMHO they are unethical, immoral cheats who
are a pox on humanity.  For example, they, the leaders, say low doses are, for
sure, deadly, when there is no evidence that is so.  They say all nuclear power
plants are unsafe, when our experience has been just the opposite (except for one
in the USSR, which, according to IAEA still has not caused as much human harm as
automobiles each year in the US alone).  They cry "fire" in a crowded theater when
there is no fire.  That, in the US is unlawful because people rushing out of the
theater are sometimes harmed for no purpose.  Such is what happens when 100,000
women have abortions because they are afraid of the radiation from Chernobyl, when
people refuse medical uses of radiation, when people are so stressed by fear of
radiation they have real physical symptoms and are harmed by their own fear
(caused by the antis), and when nations spend billions to clean up areas
unnecessarily when the money could be better spent saving real lives in a number
of different ways.  I'd love to have only a few hundred thousand dollars to set up
an endowment fund for the 46 children in the orphanage our church supports in an
extremely poor area of Tijuana, Mexico.  IMHO the anti leaders would let those
kids die and millions more to further their agenda.

> 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.

Now you really gored my ox.  I have been to many third world countries and have
seen first hand the wrenching poverty extant in the world.  My wife and I have
supported a boy in Haiti for 16 years so he could have food, clothing, education
and medical attention.  We support the orphanage in Tijuana.  We are not rich, but
believe those who are should assist those in dire need, not necessarily by giving
money, but by assisting those in need to become self sufficient.  Simply throwing
money at poverty doesn't work.  One must work to change the conditions that cause
the poverty in the first place and providing energy is one condition that, if
changed, helps in destroying poverty.  Food comes first.  Be careful, Franz when
you imply I have no feelings for the poor.

> 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.

One of our church's projects with which I am intimately involved is assisting
other countries in providing potable water in villages where there is none.

>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.

Talk to the people in South Africa.  The South African government is considering
forcing companies to spend millions on radon control when millions of their own
people die from hunger.  Not that South Africa is a developing country?  Read Nick
Tsurikov's cogent article "TENORM Legislation - Theory and Practice, A Review of
Relevant Issues"  ( pg 33) to see how the IAEA Basic Radiation Safety Standards
may create havoc in developing countries.

> 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.

Why is it then, that developing countries want what the developed countries have:
fresh water, food, cloths, a roof over one's head, education, medical attention,
etc., in addition to pop music, movies, TV shows and lots of other things that I
could be accused of thinking are not worth much?

> 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.

True.  Humans do a lot of irrational things.

> I probably
> should feel bad about these travels, but I do not.

Neither do the antis who don't give up their cars, four TV sets, and other items
that they have come to expect as necessities (and, believe me, cars are a
necessity in southern California!)

>  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.

Actually, we have been recycling radioactively contaminated metals in the world
for some time now, albeit inadvertently.  Think of the C0-60 in fencing in the US,
and in rebar in Taiwan.  And in all things from fallout.  The only difference is,
now, we are going to do it intentionally (maybe).

> What do you think?  If you agree, how
> >do we counter the situation?
>
> I think I made it clear - no, I do not agree.

That's OK, I love who you are anyway and am glad you are not one of the anti
leaders.

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

Only some of them.

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
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