RE: terrible problems? Money Problems.

[Emil Murat <kerrembaev@YAHOO.COM>]

Let me put my nickel.

I will call spade, a spade.



All these political, social problems are expressed

in the simple formula.



Money = where are they + where they will go => actions

shell find the rational/justification



Of course, there were sufferers, scientists/workers

and mostly in countries which were manufacturing

weapons. Those countries paid for the most of the

expenses while others were getting a free desperately

needed protection.



In the past the sworn secrecy and money flow into

those areas kept voices silent.

Now it seems, nobody cares about the secrecy 

Except when Chinese nationalities involved.... :-)

Whassap with that?



Money flow also has changed direction/hands.



Nowadays,



Temelin, Yucca, Paducah, Hanford etc..



It isn't the present health hazard as y'all stated

(Symposium Style).



You said: Politics is a problem. (Staff meeting style)



More clearly: Money.(closer to the reality).



People who lives close to Temelin would know this

issue better then me.



What do I see?



Czechs get cheap electricity.

Austria do not get anything, just a statistical

probability of the accident. 

Is it fear?



May be it should be a joint venture Czech Republic and

Austria? For this to happen, they need to stop blaming

each other.



Will Czechs Republic have money to pay if Austria

HYPOTHETICALY will get contaminated. 

Probably, not.

They are poor, yet proud to build the plant. ;-)



However,



Sometimes it looks that Austria will get more damages

than Czechs Republic if accident could happen.



Theoretically, it could happen, depends on the wind

direction, right?

Realistically, it is not the main concern as we all

will see later.



Of course, sometimes it was looked that Western

Countries was damaged by Chernobyl more then USSR its

self.

It is STILL looks that Ukraine was damaged more then

neigboring Belaruss.

It is perspective looks phenomena or who writes the

story or news media nonsense. 



1. Politically, Chernobyl calls a disaster.

Translation: Act of God.



Isn't silly. 



Why would you/we call it a disaster?



2. Technically, it was series of misjudgments with the

fatal consequences. Human chain reaction developed

into un controled mode which led to the Nuclear Chain

Reaction with the same uncontrolled mode. 



In 1960's, who would think that a minor safety rods

design feature would lead, 20 years later, to the

final blow.

Of course, it was not in designers minds to run

reactor in the way it was ran prior to the accident.



3. Philosophycally,

If you wish, everything in this life is a Will of your

Creator/Creators, if you believe in Him/Her/Them, if

not, everything is only statistics...

There is no mistakes, everything and everybody is for

reasons, we just do not know the reasons, yet.

Patience is a great tool, if to use properly.



4. Logically,



Soviet Union went broke.

Soviets did not have money to pay for Chernobyl fall

out contamination, so we call it disaster.

If it was called an accident, USSR would have to pay

for the clean up and damages(cow milk and produce).

USSR already was broke/bankrupt

I would call it was a sort of bankropcy protection by

UN/IAEA as a court of the international law.

The thing is that nobody gave UN/IAEA the power call

an accident as a disaster. 

UN/IAEA had bailed out the USSR.

Basically, UN/IAEA just had twisted things around, as

they often do in all directions.



Who would call my car engine broke on the Broadway as

a disaster. To me it is, to you, it may look like an

accident waiting to happen, right? ;-)



5. Reality,



Czechoslovakia was wealthier then Austria before the

War II.

Now, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic are trying to

get on the wagon.

Stop, preventing that.



6. Protectionism,



Twisting arms with the EU membership(Temelin concerns)

is just keeping Czech economy from developing. 

What is EU any way? An Exclusive Club? 

If so, Exclusives ALWAYS had their "noble standards".

Well, some of those standards look like Pure

Protectionism. It is of course a look from the "lower"

level, right?



Now, please, do not tell me about the Mexican trucks

and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).



>From the Top Seat it may still look like a simple and

reasonable safety requirement, of course ;-)



Good Day to every one.



Emil.





You wrote:

>>>>>

- -------------

The 'terrible problems' I referred to are basically 

the political problems

you also refer to, the lack of public and political 

acceptance for many more

sites than only Yucca Mountain, Paducah or Hanford. 

One problem you sure

agree is the enormous costs for clean up, whether 

clean up is necessary or

not - but they are a fact. The "terrible problems" 

sure are no radiation

protection problems. I know too little about the 

situation at Paducah, but I

am rather inclined to believe that the working 

conditions were not ideal. I

hope I expressed that in a really cautious way... This



does not only refer

to radioactivity, but to other material like 

beryllium, explosives and

solvents as well.



Regarding Hanford I know quite a few persons from this



site and they all

seem to be very healthy and well. I have been there 

almost a year ago for a

visit and thanks to a good friend I was also able to 

visit a few places on

site. You might guess that I was not afraid of the 

"terrible danger of

radiation".



Best regards,



Franz





>>>>

He wrote:

>>>>

The view of anything seems to get fairly fuzzy from 

ten thousand kilometers.



I can't speak to the issue of Paducah, but problems at



Yucca Mountain are

entirely political and the "terrible problems" at 

Hanford are basically

non-existent.  We have significant contamination 

problems from fifty years of

manufacturing nuclear weapons materials, but that 

contamination is safety

sequestered and is not a short-term risk to the 

population or the environment,

nor a long-term risk if the current cleanup is allowed



to proceed to some

reasonably-defined end point.



I have lived very comfortably for more than twenty 

years in the Tri-Cities in

Washington State, which sits just downstream of the 

Hanford reservation on the

Columbia River.  The risks to local residents from 

continuing operations and

cleanup operations on site are modest to negligible, 

although through some

strange physical/chemical phenomenon, by the time you 

get 200-300 kilometers

away the risks are enormous and the problems 

"terrible".  For us, its just

another day in paradise (assuming you have some 

tolerance for a desert

environment).



Best regards.



Jim Dukelow













__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger

http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.