Re: FACTS ABOUT TENNESSEE ILLNESSES

[EASlavin@aol.com]

Dear Bill and Greg and all:

Lest anyone misjudge me or mistakenly think that I am an "anti," I am neither 
for or aganist nuclear power. I have never represented any licensee, 
intervenor or other party in a powerplant licensing case.  

I have, however, represented both professional engineers and other ethical 
employees at nuclear and coal-fired powerplants, both government and 
corporate, who were harassed, intimidated and fired for practicing proper 
engineering judgment, or otherwise doing their jobs.  Management's 
retaliatory actions too often speak for themselves. See, e.g., DeFord v. 
Tennessee Valley Authority (DeFord II), 
http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/wblower/decsn/90era60a.htm

Nuclear powerplant whistleblowers in my experience strongly believe in 
nuclear energy and want nuclear plants operate safely.  They are dedicated to 
the ethics of their  professions, just like you and me.  They are alarmed at 
management's ill-advised actions.  

IMHO, coal-fired powerplants have serious pollution problems, and contribute 
significantly to the toxic haze over Oak Ridge, adding to the insult to the 
immune system from the TSCA incinerator.  One must not say that the TSCA 
incinerator alone caused the health problems in Oak Ridge -- that would be a 
single-factor theory. 

Before deciding what kind of plant (if any) to build, I would want to know 
ALL of the facts, e.g., if I were a director or manager of TVA or a civilian 
power company (fat chance,  which is to say no chance at all).  

The difference betwen hospitals and nuclear powerplants on the one hand and 
nuclear bomb factories on the other is the complete lack of outside 
regulation.  See, e.g., Report of the Committee on Improving Regulation at 
DOE facilities. http://www.em.doe.gov/acd/finrept.html

As noted by several of you, DOE has been arrogant lord of all that it sureyed 
for half a century, creating a colossal wasteland, from sea to shining sea, 
from Long Island to Oak Ridge to Rocky Flats to Hanford.  It is the world's 
worst managers in charge of the world's most hazardous materials.   

As noted by several professionals on this list, there is a huge amount of 
hubris  on the part of DOE nuclear bomb factory managers.  In Oak Ridge, some 
of the nuclear bomb factory managers and lawyers are the third generation of 
their famliies to tell workers to shut up, keep quiet, there's no problem.  
There must be a gene somewhere, or a bad seed.  :)  

DOE does things that no nuclear powerplant in the country does.  It's like 
the joke about substituting lawyers for lab mice at NIH because, among ohter 
reasons, "there are some things that rats just will not do."  :)  Seriously, 
you should not think  of DOE as being a part of the nuclear industry -- it is 
a pariah.  You do not need to defend it any longer.  

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, DOE is like a baby, "all appetite on the one 
end, and alll irresponsibility on the other."  As Hazel O'Leary said, DOE 
sites are not unlike what your house would be like if you "had a party every 
day for fifty years and never cleaned up."  Like a baby, DOE also has a 
tendency to go WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! to try to get its way.  Hence, several years 
worth of anti-worker posts on this listserv.

Don't take criticism of DOE as criticism of nuclear powerplants -- they have 
nothing in common but the word "nuclear."  I appreciate that no one in the 
U.S. nuclear power would put 4.2 million pounds of mercury into creeks. 

Don't ever again let DOE managers hide behind the nuclear powerplant 
industry, using y'all as human shields or indefensible.  They don't deserve 
defending.  What they did was indefensible. You know it, I know it, Congress 
knows it, Bill Clinton knows it, Bob Dole knows it, and the whole world knows 
it.  DOE is not the nuclear industry.  DOE is the Nuclear Weapons industry.  
Big difference.

Thank you for speaking out.

Ed Slavin

In a message dated 04/06/2000 12:39:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
liptonw@dteenergy.com writes:

<< another excellent posting:  The "anti's" are winning primarily because 
they have
 made so many in the nuclear community defensive to the point of not being 
objective
 about our own performance.  If there is to be any hope of a viable nuclear 
industry,
 we must be at least as tough on ourselves as our critics are.
 
 The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
 It's not about dose, it's about trust.
 
 Bill Lipton
 liptonw@dteenergy.com
 
  >>

Dear Radsafers,

I have always felt that more active input from informed persons opposed to our
(Health Physics Professionals) viewpoints would serve only to enhance the
discussions.  I see that Mr. Slavin has already been quickly labeled and
dismissed by some.   I think some of the points he makes about our dismissal 
of
opposing opinions are only bolstered by this reaction.  I believe that none of
us are completely un-biased concerning these issues, so I don't think the fact
that Mr. Slavin is weighing in on a particular side should be a cause for the
dismissal of what he has to say.  I'm pretty sure most of us are receiving a 
pay
check for our efforts, so, once again - ihmo, this is a non issue from a
standpoint of discussion.

Best regards,
Greg Landry

PS
All opinions are mine and are not endorsed by my employer




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