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

["dkosloff1" <dkosloff1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>]

Energy supply is overwhelmingly a technical problem.  Ignorant and dishonest

political machinations misdirect resources from earth and human-saving

technologies such as nuclear power to politically more powerful technologies

such as coal power .  It is a simple fact that thousands of people are alive

today because nuclear power replaced a significant proportion of coal power.

Every time nuclear power is replaced by coal power, more people die.  That

also is a simple fact, and all the poorly-constructed infant mortality

studies in the world will not change that.  Anti-nukes create imaginary

deaths or falsely attribute real deaths to nuclear power to hide this fact.

You conveniently forget that before I lived in "coal country" I was an

anti-nuke activist.  I am now a pro-nuke because I am pro-human and I have

seen reality contrased with the false arguments of anti-nukes.  I have

worked with coal, oil, uranium and natural gas as an engineer.  I have had

many discussions with coal miners, including my wife, my brother-in-law, and

my sister-in-law.  I have read about the organized coal mining opposition to

nuclear power in coal miners' union newsletters.



You also conveniently ignore the real tons of coal wastes.  I can see the

difference on a regular basis where I live.  Every day I can see the clean

vapor plume from the Perry Nuclear power plant 4 miles from my house.  I can

also see the filthy coal smoke from the Painesville Municipal coal plant

about 8 miles away and the somewhat cleaner coal smoke from the Eastlake

coal plant about 12 miles away.  I can also watch the hundreds of railroad

cars full of coal pass by daily or the tons of ash that are not widely

distributed by the plant stacks.  That ash, with toxic materials that have

no half-lives, is buried in landfills with 30-year design lives or

incorporated into building materials.  Of course I cannot see the mercury,

arsenic, barium and radioactive waste that the coal plants distribute into

the air.  But I drink them all in my drinking water and the mercury

concentrates in the fish I eat from Lake Erie.



Natural gas is an energy source that kills people and destroys property, it

is not an energy source that merely "can be dangerous".   It is an energy

source that regulary blows people to bits, incinerates them, suffocates them

or leaves them horribly disfigured.  That includes hundreds of children.

There is no such thing as "safe energry" and organizations that use that

phrase, such as the SECC, are fundementally dishonest.



The difference between coal and nuclear electricity production is not a

choice between the lesser of two evils.  It is a choice between the much

greater good of nuclear electricity production and the lesser good of coal

electricity production.  There is no free lunch, and there never will be.

Every time you use electricity, someone died to provide it to you.  I have

risked my life for years to provide people with electricity and other

benefits.  That is a choice I have made happily.



There were no political barriers to alternative energy in Sweden for the

last 20 years while they have been conducting their expriment of phasing out

nuclear power.  The experiment was tried under optimum conditions and it

failed miserably.



Don Kosloff dkosloff1@msn.com

2910 Main Street, Perry Ohio



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

From: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 4:47 PM

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





> 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.





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

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.