[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LNT
At the risk of seeming "unbelievably small minded," anyone who thinks
that rp standards or public acceptance of nuclear technology will change
based on the outcome of this debate is unbelievably naive. Consider:
(1) TMI - Even though there was no significant dose to the public,
despite the operators' best efforts to defeat the safety systems, this
effectively killed any new plants. (2) "Below Regulatory Concern" -
Even though this is scientifically valid, even with LNT, it created a
firestorm of protest, and the NRC ran for cover. (3) the fuel pool leak
at Brookhaven - Even though the dose to the public was low to zero, DOE
shut down the reactor. I'm sure I could find numerous additional cases,
but it's not worth the effort.
Although those who wrote LNT covered their butts with disclaimers,
disclaimers are universally ignored, and it's unbelievably naive to
think otherwise. (How many of those "licensing agreements" you have to
accept when installing software do you actually read?)
Nevertheless, that's a moot point. After crying wolf for so long, it's
too late to say, "just kidding."
Let's look at the real problems, for a change.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/