In a message dated 7/13/01 9:30:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
<< Unfortunately on Radsafe, one would think
that one must protect us from anything that appears to be of an
anti-nuclear stance. How childish! Nothing more than children
trying to protect what they believe they have undeniable right to
protect.
Disagree. State that. Leave the insults at home, and off of the
listserver. You want to argue .. let me suggest that you start with
those who can make a difference, and stop picking on someone
here on Radsafe, simply because they hold a different opinion than
yours (ours). >>
Sandy, Fritz, et al:
I respect the rights of others to write or utter upon the opinons of anything
on the planet. But. I don't believe in letting what is, fundamentally, a
destructive intention to go unaddressed. So. I have observed the back and
forth on the list throughout the week and have with held from commenting
because I thought others were doing a fine job. This is how I am justifying
:-) this diatribe and the bandwidth it requires.
My conscience compels me, based on my understanding and knowledge of
radiation, radioactive materials, and the biological effects of these as they
are currently characterized, to disagree with a reasonable or even polite
position with respect to an anti-nuclear viewpoint.
I regard the positions and viewpoints of anti-nuclear activists to be
contrary to broad areas of planetary survival (not simply humanoid) relative
to their carte-blanche disagreements with the use of nuclear power as a major
component of base-load energy production in the overall global energy needs
of the planet.
It is not a question of having sufficient data with which to think. Data
concerning the biological effects of ionizing radiation exists at levels well
beyond which Joe Occupational Worker is exposed. Note: this is the informed
(and apparently healthy as recently described on this list) occupational
worker, not your average Joe Earthling who receives much less…
At issue here, at least from my viewpoint, is the insistence on being right
at the expense of destroying a constructive, pro-survival mechanism by which
energy could be made broadly available. This completely satisfies the
definition of evil that I employ:
"Some action or activity that is more destructive than it is constructive
along all aspects of survival."
This definition transcends the merely humanoid condition and encompasses
planetary life forms as well. It also extends to the levels of survival that
could otherwise be attained in the absence of such destructive actions and
intentions.
That is the crux of the matter, the intention behind these destructive
efforts or, minimally, counter-constructive efforts. I have borne witness to
many examples of these destructive efforts as have all professionals in the
disciplines associated with radiation protection. The billions in resources
wasted and the diverted attention from technological advances for the purpose
of countering fundamentally baseless arguments meet, also, my definition of
evil. If there were truly a game here, beyond dramatizing "I have to be
right so I'll make you wrong" by anti-nuke global energy management experts
it would one where they would be busy actually demonstrating this rightness
or degrees of rightness.
I challenge members of the Anti-Nuke-Kook-Kamp-Kolalition to the following
game.
Take the ideal scene for Germany's "Windmills for Greens" Project in Germany.
Using ONLY renewable energy resources and WITHOUT creating ANY condition in
which additional radiation exposure above background levels would result to
anything or anybody on the planet, describe how this can be done.
Do something constructive and actually demonstrate that you have planetary
survival as your prime purpose. Demonstrate this noble purpose by actually
helping, by actually creating, by actually doing something, if it's truly in
your nature.
To increase the necessity level on this game, let's say Joe Earthling has a
very big problem coming that only anti-nukes can solve because the
technologically advanced populations are out near Alpha-Centauri by now in
their fission powered ships. We need to launch a space probe to handle an
asteroid that we want to push out of an intersecting orbital convergence with
earth eight years hence using a solar panel powered windmill or something.
We need the launch platform to be fully operational four years hence. Let's
build it in Germany, apparently they don't mind platforms and such, so let's
just go ahead and build it there in the middle of the proposed windmill farm.
One more won't make a difference and they can put a ships mast on it or
something later.
You have to describe how to do all this from scratch, otherwise, there's no
game here. You have to do something here, not just whine about all the Nuke
Plants and all the radioactive material they leave lying about and the
radiation they spew out on the general populace. So. Listed below are a few
of the things that I think will be needed to do this. I'm sure others will
have more precise needs or thoughts about it and they can add to it later so,
just consider this a thumbnail sketch. Anti's are apparently used to a glib
level of planning anyway…
I have inserted particular reminders with some of these to ensure that no
additional radioactive materials are disturbed and that no additional
radiation exposures result. If I receive a plan that actually describes how
the space probe could be successfully launched in time to avert disaster when
the asteroid stikes a nuclear plant somewhere, I will be the first convert to
anti-nuke-kookism.
Baseload Power Supply Resource (Wind Mills) Construction Phase
We need a power supply for all this first. Before we have the supply, we
have to create the mechanisms by which this is obtained. Either a generator
or a collector of some sort. Let's say windmills are the solution here and
will be the primary source for all our motive force needs. Let's build 'em.
Start.
Sources of steel for structural support:
Describe where you will obtain the steel. Most likely it should be salvaged
only from existing structures. Recall - NO radioactive materials, therefore,
no mining, milling, or smelting (TENORM, NORM…).
Getting the steel to the smelter:
Describe how the steel will be moved to the smelter or blacksmith shop or
where-ever for steel girder/structural member support extrusion. No hauling
the stuff around using petroleum fired internal combustion engines
(petro-chem industry - TENORM, NORM…).
Steel girder/structural member extrusion
Describe to me how you will solve the power supply problem for the smelter.
I allow that the smelter already exists. You don't have to build that. But.
You may not power it from conventional sources. This must be powered by a
renewable energy source, I will even allow microwave power conveyance from
some source - it's not "ionizing" radiation (but the birds won't understand
that...). Recall that ionizing radiation, your most commonly voiced
complaint is common in conventional baseload energy production sources,
including natural gas. So. Nix that. Smelter must be powered from solar
panels or windmills or some source that does not somehow result in additional
radioactive materials being exposed (no geothermal - too much TENORM…). So.
Maybe you have to go build a big solar panel array first or use a tidal
generator, make a bunch of fuel cells or something. Just don't make use of a
source using materials the creation of which results in additional radiation
exposure for anyone in it's manufacture.
Source of windmill support foundations
Describe where you will get some concrete that is free of radioactive
material and how it could be produced without creating any NORM or TENORM
problems at all. After failing to do that, then tell me how you could use a
polymer of some sort (plastic) without using a petroleum like source (NORM,
TENORM). OK, well, maybe try simply using untreated wood since a lot of the
treatments are petroleum based. Maybe that will work - for a little while…
Installation of foundations
Describe the process by which millions of tons of sedimentary materials will
be displaced for foundations without the disruption of any naturally
occurring radioactive materials in the sediment. (NORM)
Erection of towers.
Describe to me how the towers will be erected without the use of petroleum
based internal combustion engines. (NORM, TENORM) You are permitted to use
alcohol fuels, but not from crops grown using commercial fertilizers. (NORM,
TENORM)
We can also just nix the quality assurance program on structural engineering.
Most of involves a little radiography here and there and we know that's bad
right? Anyway. You can't use any form of radiography anywhere in any of
this project, including the construction of the actual space probe, which,
incidentally, may have absolutely no radioactive materials aboard. Oh yeah.
No using any form of radioactive materials during any welding either…
Power transmission lines
Describe to me the source for the production of such materials. Recall you
may not utilize materials the creation of which results in additional
radiation exposure. Therefore, nix any mining or milling for copper or
aluminum. Also, you have to find another source for your insulation
materials. (no petroleum based products, no neoprene, no plastics) I
suppose you could use plain old-fashioned rubber from the trees but you might
have a conductivity/resistance problem…
Energy storage and capacitor discharge mechanisms
New problem. Please describe how you would maintain a consistent,
steady-state baseload power supply for project needs, including the fridge,
stove, hot water heater, furnace, a/c etc. (no gas...) Remember, we have a
schedule to keep and an asteroid to deflect with non-nuclear,
non-conventional means. If it hits, we'll have lots more NORM to contend
with along with a messed-up nuclear plant.
Cite the origin of all those batteries, capacitors, and in what type of
structure are you going to keep them maintained. I'll let you off with the
manufacture of these by conventional methods. I want to know how you will
mock all this up to supply the project with power needs upon demand. You'll
need a good-sized building (more construction sans concrete) and a fair
amount of connectivity (no materials mined or milled mind you).
I think we're done with some of the big chunks of the power supply problem.
Now. Onto the launch platform. Well. Perhaps we can save that for the next
milestone update. I think this will keep you occupied for a couple
half-lives…
So far here, I'm thinking that the resources necessary to do away with
Nuclear Power generation options because of all the radioactive materials
involved, would most likely result in the generation of a whole lot of
radioactive material being required to do that. Hmmm.
Opinions are mine and are not necessarily those of my cohorts. I've simply
reached the end-phenomenon of what I regard as an evil purpose and intention
and a whole lot of stupidity that's going to keep mankind in the muck if we
allow them (anti-nuke kooks) to do that. There are many solutions awaiting
our technological arrival at some plateau. Windmills are a Quixotic (grin)
solution although, I think the old ones I see in the fields ARE picturesque.
Neil Keeney
RRPT
Neilkeeney@aol.com