Re: we're still our own worse enemy

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 14:22 11.02.2000 -0600, you wrote:
>>  If the uppermost supervisor (the public) wants to be
>> assured that there is no risk around even for the 100th time and months
>> after an accident, which would not have emitted any radionuclides - then it
>> will be done. 
>
>And at the same time the pro-nuclear option is questioned due to cost 
>over-runs, continued high operating and maintenance costs, etc.
>
>Don't you think that performing these unnecessary surveys, system 
>modifications and any other unnecessary purchase adds to this extra 
>cost, that is ultimately paid for by the public? Do we really need to 
>continue to expend billions of $$ a year on what can only be 
>identified as completely wasteful?
>

I agree insofar that one of the strategies (not tactics!) of the opponents
of nuclear power is to take actions, which makes electricity from nuclear
power plants expensive. This is carried out by blocking construction,
blocking commissioning, blocking fuelling, blocking restarts....... This
costs not only dollars, but megadollars. Compared to these costs I think
that the costs of performing some silly measurements every week are
marginal. The benefit - calming down the public - by far outnumbers the
costs. 

When I compiled a paper for an IAEA conference, dealing with the costs of
the Chernobyl-accident in Austria I contacted among others the Ministry of
Finance in Vienna. They told me, how much the government spent on
compensation for food, which had to be destroyed (lettuce could not be
harvested, spinach had to be discarded, milk had to be diverted from
consumption to cheesemaking to wait for the decay of I-131 etc.etc.). From
my ministry then (health and environmental protection) I received the data
on how much money had to be spent outside our own organisation to measure
samples. When I commented (to both of them), that the sums seemed to be
high, they simply laughed at me and said that these sums were only marginal
compared to the costs of support to farmers and the costs of radioactive
waste handling. I investigated further and found out, that by banning the
export of contaminated milk products, contaminated grain and feed, the
government saved a substantial amount of money, which otherwise would have
needed to market these goods at world market prizes, which were much below
the costs to produce them in Austria. I went to the Research Institute on
Economics and put forward my arguments to the person in charge there,
asking to tell me what was wrong with my thinking - and after a minute of
cosideration, the person said, that nothing was wrong with it. 

This is to demonstrate, that judging "necessities" and costs is not simply
a scientific matter - there come so many other factors in, which are very
difficult to take into account. 

I conclude, that the money for the unnecessary activities is in the end
well spent.

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