[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
al's answer/apology/franz
Hi all,
Apologies for over-posting a few days ago. I've answered most of the last days emails directly and will keep
posting to the list at a minimum. Feel free to email me off-list if you want to know how I answered a specific question. And Franz, I feel that I have been polite to you. I don't deserve these caustic comments. If I've said something to you or posted something that you find offensive, or if any of my attempts at humor offended you,
you hvae my apology for that.
norm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Al,
> My comments below: I’ve combined your two messages into one reply to appease the powers that be.
>
> Al Tschaeche wrote:
>
> See comments and questions below.
> That also is true of any toxic waste. Therefore, should we shut down all coal fired
> electrical generating plants because the toxic chemicals in coal ash are not
> sequestered forever from the human environment lest humans be poisoned by them?
> What about all other toxic chemicals that have no "permanent" disposal site(s)? And
> which do not have half lives, but live forever. If we do not allow nuclear waste,
> what is the rationale for allowing any other toxic waste? If there is a rationale
> allowing other toxic waste, why does it not apply to nuclear waste?
> ----------- The rationale should be to limit toxic waste as much as possible. As I've
> said before, this is a matter of political will, and may never happen.--------------
>
> And many American taxpayers still pay into the fund.
> ---------- So let's use that money to safely store the nuke waste where it is right
> now, until we know how to truly safely dispose of it, or until some pro-nuker
> president takes over and lets you guys run wild with reprocessing and the other ideas
> that have popped up on this list.-----------
>
> See my comment above. By the way, would you please explain to me the logic that
> says, we've got a lot now that we don't know how to handle so we must not generate
> any more? If what we have is already unacceptably hazardous, but has not caused any
> harm, why is a little more a problem? Or even a lot more?
>
> ---------------- Seems logical to me. Or do you like playing russian roulette? Why made the odds
> of a disaster any worse than they are now?-----------
> .
>
> I would be much more worried about the effects of the volcano than any radioactive
> waste that might be released. Volcanos do release great quantities of radioactive
> material normally. What's a little more. Would radsafers out there who know,
> please repeat the quantitative amount of radioactive material estimated to have been
> released by Mt. St. Hellens? I've forgotten.
> ------- Just quoting a recent report about Yucca.----------------
>
> Was I polite enough? Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
> -------- quite polite, thank you --------
>
> Al Tschaeche wrote:
>
> Norm & Karen, Please see comments below.
>
> 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 recall this question being asked in the last go-round. I can only answer
> that the aim should be to have energy that is cleanest, safest, and poses the least risk to
> the public and public health. Yeah, I know, you all would say nukes! ;0). If you all want to
> educate me further on what you see as risks for solar and wind, email me off list so Melissa
> doesn't throw me off the list.----------
>
> 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.
>
> ---------------- Yes of course life is risky. I could get run over by a moving van opening my car door.
> Now don't laugh. In a previous life, before computers, when I had more time, I used to read
> Analog, which is a sci-fi/sci-fact magazine. I recall articles there about launch mechanisms
> that could be built in Peru that would sling payloads up to orbit safely. I guess I'm saying
> that I'd like to see non-nuke technology used around earth, but out in space, and with
> astronauts who understand the risk, use whatever space propellant that makes sense.-------
>
> 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?
>
> --------- I don't believe that holds for wind, and probably solar. Ask all the Native American uranium miners who are dying from cancer if the nuke cycle is safe. Ask all the people around the DOE sites who are dying from assorted nuke related diseases if the nuke cycle is safe. Coal isn't the answer either. It's just the nuke power supporters easy 'straw man'.----------
>
> >
>
> > > 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?
>
> -------- No, I think its fear of George Bush winning the election. (only 1/2 kidding). Most
> of my life is taken up by raising my family and trying to do my part to leave them the best world
> possible. Probably so is yours. We just have different perspectives.-------------
>
> > > 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?
> ---------- I said "in theory". Lots of things work well "in theory". "In theory", the Phillies should have been in first place right now instead of last. Later I added my usual caveat,, "but human beings get thrown into the mix". I do believe that reactors are safer because of the work that grassroots groups do. A current example in Indian Point. There's no question that Con Ed has finally decided to put the new steam gens in only because of intense public pressure. Also, because of grassroots groups, many of the worse nuke clunkers, like Maine Yankee, are shut down for good. The NRC, in 1985, said that there was a 45% chance of another TMI-like accident by the year 2000. Lochbaum, in a recent article, said that nuke plants were playing roulette with safety. So, all I can say is that we got through another day with some emissions, more waste, and no major, accidents. Tomorrow, who knows.-----------
>
> > > 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.
>
> --------- You're certainly right. I should have used some other phrase.---------
> norm
>
> > ************************************************************************
>
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> --
> Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood,
> NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer machine);
> norco@bellatlantic.net; UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION
> FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~norco/ ICQ# 54268619;
> The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
> “We have two lives, the one we’re given, and the other one we make” (Mary Chapin
> Carpenter)
> “Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights...Get up, stand up, don’t give up the
> fight!” (Bob Marley)
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer machine); norco@bellatlantic.net; UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/ COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~norco/ ICQ# 54268619; The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
“We have two lives, the one we’re given, and the other one we make” (Mary Chapin Carpenter)
“Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights...Get up, stand up, don’t give up the fight!” (Bob Marley)
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html