more: lots of answers; one email; easy deleting; no leftovers

[Norman Cohen <ncohen12@HOME.COM>]

Hi all,

Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving. Here's my responses to your

various emails. If I haven't answered to your satisfaction, feel free to

email me offlist:



To: Brian Keele (who wantw me kicked off the list). Brian, it is not

considered good 'netequitte' (sp?) to forward personal emails without

permission. But what I said stands. Your challenge to me "to perform

scientific work" is silly. If you don't want me on this list, take it up

with the moderator. Otherwise, just use your delete key.



To Don Kosloff: I agree with you that there is no a magic solution to

energy policies in the US or the world for that matter. I have stated

before that this is more of a political problem than technical. What I

meant by the "false coal vs nukes dichotomy" is that the people who are

pro-nuke always bring up coal to bash, basically implying,

"yes, we have some problems with nukes, but coal is evil", thus setting

up the usual least of two evils scenarios.

I agree that natural gas can be dangerous. I agree that there are

problems associated with most any energy production. It comes down to

which path we want the country to travel, and to that end, we'll have

some diagreements.



To: Jim Dukelow - I appreciate your info on wind power. There's much in

the details I do not know, not being an expert on it.  But I do believe

that wind pwoer can provide a great deal of our energy. See the URL' s I

posted on Friday.  I appreciate your 'sauce' analogy, though I stuck to

'gravy'. ;-)



To: D Whitfield - No question that there are roadblocks on the way to

building up windpower; no question that we are going ot need  a mix of

energy sources. The UCS paper is just a guide, a very conservative guide

to the paths for energy independence we have to take. Will nuclear be a

part of it? I don't know, because in 20 years, without new nukes, the

ones we got now will be rather old and cranky (like I felt on my 50th

b-day Saturday).



To Bates Estabrooks: Thanks for the article on nuke waste. I forwarded

it to our email lists. Its a pretty accurate

history of the political struggles over waste and Yucca mountain, though

it downplays the grassroots work of NIRS an other groups that have

helped to at least stall the Yucca project. No question that waste is a

weak area for nukes. Had they been built with bigger spent fuel pools

that could hold 60 yrs of waste instead of 30, we wouldn't be having

this discussion. That'll teach you to trust the government when the govt

makes you a promise for 30 years down the road. My position on Yucca was

posted recently.



To Floyd Flanigan - I'll get back to you on that one re: shipping

canisters.



To John Flood: I do understand that nuke plants produce a great deal of

power. I think your predictions are alarmist and will not happen.



To: Jaro - I appreciate the article on nuclear waste. I understand that

the older used rods are less radioactive. But they are still indeed

dangerous. Here's your problem - Before 9-11 no one in power, at NRC,

etc thought that nuke plants wer real, bona fide potential terrorist

targets. I know you guys spent some time discussing it before 9-11, so

at elast you were thinking about it, but the public and decision makers

weren't. Now its clear that they are targets. One can argue about the

odds, but to the public's perception the odds are too high. There's not

alot you can do about this perception except wait for time to pass and

hope there's not another improbable terrorist attack on the US. What I'm

saying is that to the public science and rational discussion right now

doesn't matter - nukes are terror targets and you all are stuck with

that reality, real or not.

   As far as your wind discussion - I suggest saying that pro-wind

advocates would cause 1000s of deaths is just the same kind of hyperbole

you all say us anti-nukers employ. Clearly, many of your concerns are

quite reasonable and will have to be dealt with. Again, see the URL's I

posted Friday.



To my dear buddy Franz: Franz, I do NOT make a living at the non-profit

anti-nuke and peace work I do. My wife supports em, or I'd be out

working a 'real job', I could easily turn your argument around and say

that all opinions of radsafers are bogus because you all 'make a living'

from the nuclear industry.  Are there tactics that involve costing

utlities more to operate? I'd say there are tactics trying to force nuke

utilities to play by the rules. If that costs them more, too bad.

Appreciate in your other post that you only called me a pain in the

neck, instead of a pain in the somewhere else.



To Julian Ginniver - Your suggestion is the kind of "out of the box"

thinking that one needs to make such a radical cahnge as one from

nukes/coal to renewables.



To: Michael Kent - I posted that info from BP Solar that speaks somewhat

to your questions. I think, though that the main reason is corporate

greed. Toyota has produced a hybrid and an electric car. Why is Detroit

stickiing to low-mileage SUV's? They make more money. Without govt

intervention, the change from current power sources to alternatives will

be much slower. Thats just economics.



To Kerimbaev: You want me to 'change teams"... Do I get a signing bonus,

and how much?? ;-)



To: Lorraine Marceau-Day: I'm sure that there's ways of dealing with

stripped gears. As far as your comments on UCS's plan, I'll forward them

to UCS and see if they answer. In general, your comments look too much

at the negatives and not enough at the positives. We don't need to get

people out of cars, we just need to double gas mileage, and switch to

biodiesel and other bio based fuels which would be a net zero carbon

emission.

Pebble Bed nukes have a numebr of problems, no containment and fire

concerns among them. When I get a chance I'll post NIRS's fact sheet on

Pebble Beds and you can all have a go at it.



To Mike Stabin:  I'd disagree with you that no one has ever died from

nukes. There's the (mostly) Native American uranium miners died and

dying of assorted cancers; there people downstream from uranium

tailings; there the 1000s of workers at uranium plants like Paducah that

are dying of beryillium and other diseases; there's the higher

death/cancer/infant mortality/low birth weights around nuek plants.

   I never though about starting a "DSWS" (Don't Shake When Sick)

campaign. I'll see if some foundation will fund it. I think that natural

gas safety is already taken. Of course I care about people dying from

gas explosions...non-rationally yours.....

   On Mike's other email, I wish that there will be 'enormous pressure'

for the US to become energy independent, but, unless there are either

more terror attackss, or if (god forbid) a larg number of our soldiers

die in wars relating to oil, I don't see it. Americans are too damn

complacent, and with gas prices back under a buck, they'll just keep

driving those SUV's..



For Otto: appreciate his concerns about the lack of real available

alternative energy. again would point him to the BP Solar URL's. I

appeciate his investment tip. I understand (believe it or not) his

vision of a world powered by nukes in which we don;'t need other forms

of environmentally damaging energy.  Perhaps its MY lack of vision or

trust, but I just can't support such an idea. To me, too risky. To you

all, probably not.



For Paul L: Yes, you see its OK for radsafers to spout off on subjects

they know nothing about. But if Norm spouts off on any subject (since

radsafers thing I know nothing about any subject) Norm gets flamed. Not

a just world, is it?



To Ruth: According to what I read last year, seismic activity at the

Yucca site is about 25% that of the San Andreas fault. If you are

willing to take the risk, more power to ya.



To Sandy Perle: Yes, the condescending attitude of many on the

"pro-nuke" side doesn't help your cause. I personally experienced that

kind of attitude from the NEI back in 98, when they visited our County

Freeholders (like a Commissioner) to give a pro-nuke  talk. I've

experienced it from PSEG's people and from some, not all, of the NRC.

The NJ Bureau of Nuclear Engineering has not been that way. And of

course, no one on radsafe is ever condescending or obnoxious to

me.........

   On your 2nmd email, it's not even a question of  'cleaning your

house'. Its just admitting the truth and agreeing that nukes aren't

perfect. Here's an example: when the NRC held a public hearing on Salem

2's steam generators this fall, at our request, in their opening

statement NRC totally ignored Indian Point's problems, like IP had never

happened. NRC would have been so much betetr off to admit what happened

at IP and talk about how things were better...



  To Mark Somerville: I respect your opinion that nukes are the way. For

me, they're not.



To: Steve Franz: Actually many people think that nuke waste should sit

where it is, in the fuel pools, until technology finds a way to truly

eliminate it. Clearly, for us non-nukkers, the idea of having 50,000

waste shipments on the road AND nukes still operating to produce yet

more waste is unacceptable.



To: Ted de Castro- Your statement that 'there simply are not enough

renewables period' appears to be innacurate. Golly gee, why didn't

anyone flame you? if I wrote that, there would be scorcth marks on my

rear!  As far as solar being dirty, hopefully the BP Solar URL's

answered some of those concerns.



To Tim: I'll get back to you on that URL and cask crash.



Well, that appears to be everyone in my in-box. Now I've got carpal

tunnel!



peace

norm





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

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.