[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "Watchdog group questions safety of nuclear plant"



As one of my favorite Presidents once said, "Here we go again!"  I am NOT

looking forward to one more of those theological, "How many angels can dance

on the head of a pin?" arguments.  I already know the positions of all the

individuals who seem to enjoy this, and, obviously, have nothing better to

do.



Please stop, take a deep breath, and try to remember that:  (1) There's a

whole beautiful world out there.  (2) This argument will have no effect on

anyone.



If you simply can't resist, please correspond by private e-mail, and leave

the bandwidth to something worthwhile.



Thanx.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose it's about trust.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:



> Jerry,

> And what would you suggest to get beyond this impasse?

>

> -- John

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]

> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 2:31 PM

> To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); Norman Cohen; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: Re: "Watchdog group questions safety of nuclear plant"

>

> > One of the failures of the nuclear power industry and regulators is

their

> > inability to say "It is safe.  And we will continue to ensure that it

> > remains safe."

>

> John, Norman, et al,

>

>     How can it be scientifically determined that anything is "safe"?

>

>     How can one prove the absence of risk?

>

>     In other words, is safety just a warm fuzzy feeling, or can it be

> objectively

> determined? WASH 1400 (The Rasmussen study) in 1974 showed that

> nuclear power was relatively safer than than most things we accept without

> concern. Nevertheless accidents are possible so it is not absolutely safe.

> So----- What do you mean by SAFE, and what could the nuclear power

> industry  and regulators do to "ensure that it remains safe"?????

>







>     In other words, is safety just a warm fuzzy feeling, or can it be

> objectively

> determined? WASH 1400 (The Rasmussen study) in 1974 showed that

> nuclear power was relatively safer than than most things we accept without

> concern. Nevertheless accidents are possible so it is not absolutely safe.

> So----- What do you mean by SAFE, and what could the nuclear power

> industry  and regulators do to "ensure that it remains safe"?????

>



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

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.