[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lochbaum on nuke plant aging
dear mr. norman cohen,
i, as well as others on this list i'm sure, would very much appreciate
improved dialog on your part in response to the discussions you initiate.
by this i do not imply more quotes from whomever you received your
information from in the first place (e.g. lochbaum, ucs, etc.), but your
'personal' reply to the many in-depth counterpoints that so many people on
this list go out of their way to supply you (us) with. i attempt to not be
hasty in my initial judgement of others, so let me just leave it at the fact
that, though i feel you may have a good heart, i have as of yet no positive
opinion of you with respect to your ability to contribute to the discussions
on the list. at this point you appear to be merely a middle-man uncapable,
or unwilling, to reply in such a personal nature to these intellectual
challenges. without your improved contribution, the efforts of those on
this list would be much more effective directed to the originators of your
'quotes', than to be directed at you and lost in cyberspace. my own
counterpoint, though; regardless of all the hubbub that surrounds your
association with radsafe, i am intellectually benefiting from the
corresponding information/knowledge that is provided by the many
professionals on this list. i understand that this is a facet of your job
(i.e unplug), but i do challenge you to 'lay it on the line' and answer such
simple questions as those below. here's where i become somewhat arrogant.
imho, you cannot honestly answer this challenge. science and logic
inherently undermines and refuts the arguements of those whom you represent.
help me understand a little more and come to an opinion on you. i do
apologize in advance for the crassness of what i'm about to say. following
are a couple hypothetical descriptions of you. you are opposed to the human
propensity to over-rely on/excessively use energy sources, and feel as
though you're doing your part by being anti-nuclear power. you at one time
honestly believed the nuclear-power industry was a major threat to the
safety of the people, such that the risks greatly outweighed the benefits.
you have been exposed to great amounts of information which, one would think
in the search for truth, would lead you to competently research both sides
of the argument. with this in mind, you have either realized your previous
beliefs have been dispelled and are aware of the misleading and dishonest
nature of those you follow, or you are ignorant of science and controlled
by the emotion of those around you and used to their benefit. please,
please give me some insight as to your nature; i believe the list does have
the right to get more personal with you in light of the dynamic between
radsafe and yourself.
ps/more two cents - you seem very passionate in your work, and i would wager
that you heart is in the right place. i feel you would be more beneficial
to society placing all you efforts in a more respectable arena
i hope for peace too,
ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: lochbaum on nuke plant aging
> Norm provided a Dave Lochbaum article that listed many plant system
failures due to
> "assumed aging." The correlation therefore is that since there is aging,
that all units
> should be shutdown. Based on this philosophy, I assume that UCS also
demands
> that all mechanical systems that obviously age, should also be shutdown?
Recently
> we had the American Airline Airbus 300 crash, due to a composite tail
(most likely
> cause) that crashed after aging. We also had the TWA 747 crash a few years
ago
> due to wear around wiring insulation. We have other example similar to
this, in all
> forms of transportation. Homes age and fires are caused by wiring wear.
So, do we
> all shutdown these other components as well? In the single Airbus crash,
more
> people have died in just 1 moment than in all of the years of private and
government
> run nuclear programs in the USA. I would venture to speculate that this is
still true
> considering all of the world nuclear units.
>
> If UCS is so concerned about prevention of death and destruction, I wonder
why they
> don't tackle a "real" problem, where there can be a demonstrable positive
effect?
> Perhaps they simply like to run on the "fear factor".
______________________________________________________________
Eduardo Mendez III
Graduate Research Assistant
The Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105
email emendez@vt.edu
ph 540.231.3913
fax 540.231.7532
______________________________________________________________
************************************************************************
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.