[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: al's answer/apology/franz
And with this post, Mr. Cohen, you have added yet another
post to RADSAFE, violating your own policy. You remind one
of a person who can't stop talking about how much he is going
to curb his talking. Why? Because he so loves to hear himself
speak.
Your policy is nothing but typical antinuclear activist duplicity.
My opinion only.
Steve Frey
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman & Karen Cohen [mailto:norco@bellatlantic.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 9:41 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html