RE: Reactor Containments and Terrorist Attacks

["jenday1" <jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>]

Ted, Ted, Ted,



I think we have been down this road before.

1.  Article appears in press that contains mistakes (sometimes big,

sometimes minor)

2.  We complain on this or another list server

3.  Maybe someone (you?) write to the paper or magazine.

4.  Letter may or may not get published.

5.  Probably never read by the people who read the original piece.

6.  In the future, another article is printed.  Go to step 1.



I think your mission, if you accept it, is to scour the local and national

newspapers, magazine, radio and television stations and identify all

statements that are in error.   Then, you will need to get the true

information out and have the news organization to admit the error and

correct.  Of course, you will not be given any funds to support your effort,

but our best wishes.



Personally, I believe that your last comment is too true and am appalled,

but not surprised, that it is even being considered.



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD 20715-2024

jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

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



Ted Rockwell wrote:



Why does no one think it's worth the trouble to loudly, specifically and

publicly denounce such statements outright? Isn't that what ANS, HPS and

particularly NEI ought to be doing?   With all the outrageous scenarios NRC

can think of, it has never come up with one (post TMI) that caused over 100

deaths.  And even those are based on unreasonable premises.!



Why do we complain about Nader and the media when we let the authorities

make statements like that without any refutation?



I believe it would be easy to show that the fuel-bearing tanks in an

airplane wing can simply NOT penetrate a containment structure, so the worst

you could have is a crack in the concrete and perhaps part of the engine

lying on the deck.  The plant probably wouldn't even shut down.



But the record now stands that the agency responsible for reactor safety

says that we'd most probably have tens of thousands of deaths, although

being a non-alarmist government official, he concedes that he's less certain

of that.



Who needs enemies?  Am I the only guy that thinks such statements should not

be allowed to stand unchallenged?



(Of course, what we prove if we successfully challenge such statements is to

prove that those whom we must depend on for assuring reactor safety are

either liars or fools.  That's not very comforting.)



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

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.