Re: nuclear safety groups?- UCS

[BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>]

	It should be noted that McKenzie was not a physical scientist or

engineer. I believe he was a history major, or something like that.



Bernard L. Cohen

Physics Dept.

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Tel: (412)624-9245

Fax: (412)624-9163

e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu





On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM wrote:



> Steve:

> Your remarks are well stated.

>

> Back about 1974 I had the opportunity to address a few hundred attendees of

> the opening plenary session of the Massachusetts Safety Council about the

> beneficial environmental aspects of nuclear energy [I was a staff scientist

> for a nuclear services company at the time] and found myself following the

> leadoff speaker, Dr. James McKenzie a founder of the UCS.

>

> McKenzie's talk was a litany of anti-nuclear charges, but he made one glaring

> error where he mistakenly referred to the LOFT [Loss of Fluid Test] test

> facility as a  1/60 [one sixtieth] scale reactor whose test results meant

> NOTHING.

>

> After my prepared remarks, I couldn't help but point out that McKenzie's talk

> contained many errors [this wasn't meant to be a point counter point debate]

> but that his misrepresentation of the LOFT facility repeated a clever

> distortion, but with an additional major distortions, than that which had

> appeared on an anti-nuclear TV program on NOVA of a few weeks prior. In this

> NOVA special against nuclear power the 1/4 scale LOFT facility was accurately

> [but slyly]  referred to as a 1/60 VOLUME  reactor.

>

> I pointed out in my brief aside comments to my talk, that Dr. McKenzie went

> one step further in his distortion to mislead the audience  about LOFT.  In

> his anti-nuclear zeal, he inaccurately referred to the LOFT as 1/60 SCALE,  a

> distortion in terms of  its 1/4 SCALE  [built at a cost in t he early 1970s

> of over $200 million] of 15 fold smaller, or a distortion in terms of  actual

> VOLUME of over 3000!! This simple  ad lib statement resulted in a long

> running laugh from the audience of safety professionals and a reaction from

> Dr. McKenzie of  clear shock and embarassment. I then asked a hypothetical

> question of the audience of how many full-scale ships are built to test to

> destruction to see if the lifeboats work [a tip of my hat to the late Dr.

> Petr Beckman of Access to Energy] ?  The point was made.

>

> After the plenary session, Dr. McKenzie of the UCS, and I were escorted to a

> media room to be interviewed by some local TV  stations. I tried to make some

> small talk with him in the hallway as we walked along to be interviewed,  but

> he was still so angry about being publically embarrassed he could not even

> speak because his jaw was still clenched so tight.

>

> It's been said that "Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned".

>

> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

> Public Health Sciences

> 172 Old Orchard Way

> Warren, VT 05674

> [802] 496-3356

> email: SAFarberMSPH@cs.com

> =====

>

> In a message dated 11/5/01 3:51:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> sfrantz@YAHOO.COM writes:

>

>

> > Subj:nuclear safety groups?

> > Date:11/5/01 3:51:32 PM Pacific Standard Time

> > From:    sfrantz@YAHOO.COM (Steve Frantz)

> > Sender:    owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:sfrantz@YAHOO.COM";>sfrantz@YAHOO.COM</A> (Steve Frantz)

> > To:    radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu (radsafe)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The UCS and other groups say that they are not anti-nuclear,

> > they are pro-nuclear safety.

> >

> > OK, then let them define their safety goal in measurable means.

> >

> > How thick of a containment is safe? How many hours of training

> > per year for the licensed operators? How many backup deisel

> > generators? What level of releases above background? How many

> > hours of NRC inspection per year? How many radiation induced

> > cancers in the neighboring population? Anything at all

> > quantifiable?

> >

> > They will not answer these questions. They will only say that

> > what is being done is not enough. Anything more that is done is

> > also not enough. The plants are not safe.

> >

> > Can the plants be made safe through modification? NO! They are

> > very dangerous and we can’t trust the utility or the NRC to do

> > what they promise!

> >

> > Will the plants be safe if they are shut down? NO! The spent

> > nuclear fuel at the site is very dangerous!

> >

> > Should the spent nuclear fuel be moved to Nevada or some other

> > storage facility? NO! Moving it is much too dangerous!

> >

> > They say that the plants are unsafe if operating, unsafe if

> > shutdown, and unsafe if the utility tries to remove the

> > radioactive material.

> >

> > What is their solution? THERE IS NO SOLUTION!!!

> >

> > Now, why would anyone think that they are anti-nuclear?

> >

> > Stephen Frantz

> > Reed College

> > sfrantz@reed.edu

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

>

>

>



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

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.