RE: Yucca; shipping to yucca

["Flanigan, Floyd" <Floyd.Flanigan@FERNALD.GOV>]

I agree. Unfortunately that is a matter for the DOT boys.



-----Original Message-----

From: Marthaller, Chris [mailto:Chris.Marthaller@wipp.ws]

Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:53 PM

To: ncohen12@HOME.COM; Radsafe (E-mail)

Subject: RE: Yucca; shipping to yucca





Norm,

    First let me state that I don't receive anything you send to radsafe, it

all gets deleted prior to coming in.  I don't want to get into a discussion

on the nuclear arena.  My question is why don't you put your resources to

work at getting all of the gasoline, propane, LNG, and chemical vehicles off

the road.  The devastation occurring from any accident, or terrorist

activity involving any of these carriers is immediate and permanent to

anyone within a large radius of the explosion.  If your organization would

place your priorities where they would do the most good, I don't think I

would have much of a problem supporting that agenda. 

    Having been involved in the aftermath of the above mentioned dangers,

and seeing the testing that goes into RAM transporters, it is easy for me to

want to know also where you get the justification to purposely spread

misinformation on the dangers as the organization seems to do quite easily. 

 

Chris A. Marthaller, RRPT 

Sr. Training Coordinator, WIPP 

(505) 234-8661 

Chris.Marthaller@wipp.ws 

I alone am to blame for my statements. 

"If we keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are

getting." ANON 

 



2.  You say 

"We are concerned about the inevitable 

accidents, truck crashes, train wrecks, that will occur when there are 

over 50,000 shipments being planned. You are not concerned abut this, 

stating that the shipping casks are strong enough. " 



You are quite wrong: it is precisely because we are concerned that the casks

are designed as they are and that the risks and consequences of accidents

are so consistently overestimated in every analysis.  But to my question:

Don't you think the casks are "strong enough"?  What kind of accident do you

think they are not strong enough to withstand?  Is there any accident that

you think they ARE strong enough to withstand?  Do you think 10 CFR Part 71

Subpart E is just whistling in the wind?  Not enforced?  Disregarded?

Inadequate?  If you think it is inadequate, in what way do you think so? 



Maybe you could put these questions to David Lochbaum, and I could get his

answers. 







Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. 

ruthweiner@aol.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.

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

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.