[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why has not Norm replied to this?
---
Tom Savin
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:38:03
Flanigan, Floyd wrote:
>P.S.
>Please excuse typo's.Short on time this morning.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Flanigan, Floyd [mailto:Floyd.Flanigan@fernald.gov]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:11 AM
>To: 'Mercado, Don'; 'radsafe'; 'ncohen12@home.com'
>Subject: RE: what about this Norm?
>
>
>Couldn't help weighing in on this one..... I've been a nuclear professional for 16 years and I can bear witness that many different conclusions can be drawn from the same ststistical data depending on what outcome you hope for but in some cases we are forced to use common sense. Certain truths are self-evident. Don't you think that it might just be possible that the people who designed and built the power plants thought of these concerns during the planning stages? In my opinion , the anti-nuke side of the fence is trying to opportunize the terrorist threat to further their own agenda. Guess what folks....... NOTHING is absolutely secure. There will always be the factor of human error. There will always exist the possibility of someone accepting a bribe or making a terrible mistake or falling into a job for which they are nowhere near qualified and finding themself in over their head , forced to make decisions which they have no ability to make. If we are to worry about an in!
d
!
>!
>!
>!
>ustry with a dedicated security force , shouldn't we worry that much more about industry with NO security? Hey.....let's just see how badly we can scare ourselves......How about the Dairy industry?! Who will protect our milk cows from being contaminated by terrorists and causing who knows what to happen to all those poor children on their milk breaks in elementary school!? What if they take over all of our water processing facilities in the middle of the night?! What will we drink now that they have already ruined the milk supply!? What if they bribed the QA and Chem supervisors at Coca Cola and they poisoned all the soft drinks!? What if that 'The Faculty ' movie was really true and all of the teachers to whom we entrust our kid's safety is really a blood thirsty alien!? What if monkeys fly out of my ASS! Come on .......we are supposed to be professionals in some capacity or other. We are supposed to speak in the reassuring voice of reason. We are supposed to be the guys tha!
t
!
>!
>!
>!
> soothe away the paranoia.......not the dorks who feed it in the name of possibly being the one wacko in a million who guessed right and earned the honor of saying 'SEE.....I told you so!' Let's stop feeding the fire and live up to our credentials....shall we?
>Humbley your's,
>Floyd W. Flanigan BS Nuclear Health Physics
>Fernald Environmental Project
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mercado, Don [mailto:don.mercado@LMCO.COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:50 PM
>To: 'radsafe'; 'ncohen12@home.com'
>Subject: RE: what about this Norm?
>
>
>Okay Norm. Since you seem to be able to get DL of UCS to talk to you, why
>don't you pose the excellent questions below to him and get back to us with
>his answers?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas J Savin [SMTP:tjsav@LYCOS.COM]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:07 AM
>> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>> Subject: what about this Norm?
>>
>> Steve has an excellent group of points (see below). What is your opinion
>> on Yucca MT? Just think of all the spent nuclear fuel that would be
>> removed from nuclear power plants. Do you think that a 747 would explode
>> the mountain, or maybe cause volcanic activity there? lets take care of
>> two things at once. Remove spent fuel from the plants and get rid of one
>> of the terrorist options.
>> ---
>> Tom Savin
>>
> On 5 Nov 2001, 4:21 PM Norm Cohen wrote:
>
> >>Of course I ran this by Dave Lochbaum and here's what he said:
>
> >>"UCS is neither pro-nuke nor anti-nuke.
>
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:45:13
>> Steve Frantz wrote:
>> >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?
>> >
> [Mercado, Don] <snip>
>> >Can the plants be made safe through modification?
>> >
> [Mercado, Don] <snip>
>> >Will the plants be safe if they are shut down?
>> >
>> >Should the spent nuclear fuel be moved to Nevada or some other
>> >storage facility?
> [Mercado, Don] <snip>
>************************************************************************
>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.
>************************************************************************
>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.
>************************************************************************
>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.
>
>
************************************************************************
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.