Re: About this list

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Norm & Karen, I understand your message.  Please see comments below.

Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> I am certainly in favor of nuclear medicine. Xrays and MRI's saved my life when they
> discovered a tumor growing near my spine about 7 years ago. I have no problem with
> research, with looking for better, safer ways of making energy.

Here is a question you might not have thought of before.  How safe do ways of making
energy have to be?  How much risk
are you willing to have from energy-making sources in your life?  Do you want zero risk?
What is an acceptable risk, and for
what kind of harm?  Just in general, please, not especially nuclear.  For example, if
solar is your bag, how much risk from the whole solar cycle, for mining to waste disposal,
would you be willing to accept?

> I'd have no problem
> with nuclear spacecraft as long as they are launched in space and in such a way that
> there was no danger for their falling back to earth.

It sounds like you want "no danger" from nuclear spacecraft.  Does that mean you want
absolute and complete assurance that
a nuclear spacecraft cannot fall back to earth?  If not, what is the level of risk you
would be willing to take for the benefit of
space exploration? If so, you are being unreasonable because nothing is absolutely safe.
One must, either consciously or unconsciously, accept that life is risky and cannot be
absolutely safe.  To do otherwise is to deny reality.

> Lochbaum still thinks nuke plants can be run safely. I'm not convinced of that. I
> continue to feel that because there are non-coal, green, safe alternatives, that we
> can and must phase out nukes over a reasonable period of time.

There are well done studies that demonstrate that the complete nuclear electric generating
cycle, from mines to waste
disposal, when compared to all other kinds of electric generating cycles on a similar
basis,  emit fewer greenhouse gasses; are net energy suppliers, as opposed to using more
energy to make the conversion systems than can be generated from those systems; and are
safer.  That cycle produces electricity at less cost than any other except coal.  The
studies are based on current knowledge and include no "what ifs."  To my mind that says
nuclear is the best we have.  If we want more greenhouse gases, more expense, less safety
and spending more energy to produce electricity than we get back, then, I guess, we
wouldn't pick nuclear.  But, rationally, why pick anything else?

> To convince me that nuke plants are safe would be difficult, due to my level of risk

This, I think is the nub of the problem.  If your level of risk for nuclear is zero or
close thereto, why is it not so for other hazardous things and activities?  Is dying from
radiation worse than burning to death in a car accident that is much more likely than
death by radiation?  Is fear of radiation really running your life?

> I'm willing to accept and due to my experiences working to close the Salem Nukes. In
> theory, it's possible to build a totally safe nuke as soon as you work out a real
> solution for the waste.

So, for you, the only problem with nukes is waste disposal.  Power reactors are currently
acceptably safe.  Or did I miss something?

> In reality, human beings get involved, and that eliminates
> even the theory of "totally safe".

There is no "totally safe" anything.  Even when humans are not involved.  Think of
tornados and other natural phenomena that result in human deaths and injuries.  Even when
humans were in a kinder, gentler surrounding, thousands of years ago, they died from
sabretooth tiger attacks.  Or from freezing in winter, etc.

Keep well and happy.  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

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