RE: Natural Gas Explosion in New Mexico Kills 10 ---Again

["Kilbane, John P" <jkilba@sandia.gov>]

A "MINOR" news note GET A CLUE.

-----Original Message-----
From: RadiumProj@cs.com [mailto:RadiumProj@cs.com]
Sent: August 20, 2000 7:51 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Natural Gas Explosion in New Mexico Kills 10 ---Again


A "minor" news note over morning coffee brings us back to the subject of  
nuclear vs. alternate fuel cycle risk comparisons. As has been repeatedly 
noted by proponents of the Salem Unplug and the STAR anti-nuke initiatives 
commented to Radsafe of late, natural gas use has been promoted vs. nuclear 
for power generation until some indefinite time when "renewable" sources of 
power come into their own. See the following link to an AP news story about 
an underground natural gas explosion 20 miles from  Carlsbad, NM which
killed 
10 campers [so far, more having been horribly burned]  hundreds of yards
away 
from the point of the pipeline explosion which left a huge crater.

Click on link below for Natural Gas Explosion in New Mexico Kills 10 
<A 
HREF="http://newsroom.compuserve.com/nr/story.asp?idq=/apo/National/National
_1
52.ASP&CoView=&PV=NAT">Click here: News</A>

Questions to consider:
Once again we are reminded that every form of energy has its price 
--economic, environmental, climatic, and strategic. Every energy cycle will 
have accidents which lead to loss of life in mining, transportation, use,
and 
waste disposal. Is any one energy cycle absolutely "safe"?  Are 
"environmentalists" like Norm Cohen likely to rush out news releases calling

for a moratorium on all uses of natural gas because another pipeline 
explosion has led to loss of life? Should they? 

This most recent underground gas pipeline explosion 20 miles from Carlsbad 
makes a point that gas running in a sealed pipeline 20 feet underground has 
been found to be much more of a hazard to real people than the hypothetical 
risks 10,000 years into the future of burying nuclear wastes underground in 
an engineered repository. Will this unfortunate natural gas accident 
influence the vocal activists who claim to base their actions against all 
things nuclear  on concern for health and safety of the general public? 
Should the sincerity of many of the critics of theoretical nuclear safety 
risks be called into question? Should the lack of balance in their focus
only 
on theoretical radiation risks from nuclear power vs. larger radiation risks

as with radon in natural gas used in unvented domestic uses, and in
accidents 
with transporting gas by pipeline and by LNG tankers be called into
question?

Will the public every realize they're being constantly manipulated by 
antinuclear scare tactics and one-sided, unbalanced presentations of risk?

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
email: radiumproj@cs.com
[802] 496-3356
************************************************************************
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