Re: Why is it...., Part 2

[maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>]

FWIW, the following complaint was in response to a junk engineering/scientific "report" in the Washington Times. It probably will not be published,

but at least some folks have to read it to reject it. This kind of news crap simply should not be ignored.

Cheers,

Maury Siskel   maury@webtexas.com

==============

Subj:        Nuclear Plants [supposed] Target

Date:       Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:00:42 -0600

From:       maury <maury@webtexas.com>

    To:       letters@washingtontimes.com



Dear Editor,

Aside from content of the article, the headline claiming that nuclear

plants are terrorist targets is silly and falls way short of Bill Gertz'

and the Times' statures. You both know full well that potential targets

include just about every US location from major bridges, sports

stadiums,  to major water systems. You have assisted the government

promotion of irrational fears of anything nuclear. Plenty of experts in

government know as a result of many tests and analyses, that nuclear

power plants are far less vulnerable than a large number of other

potential target categories. Please cease promoting irrational public

fears and unreasoning worries..

Sincerely,

Maury Siskel

===========================================

Tim wrote:



> I agree.  I recently had the pleasure of reviewing a

> report by Dr. Helmut Hirsch, one of Greenpeace's

> "nuclear experts."

>

> His report stated that a meltdown would (not "could"

> or "may", but "would" - meaning 100% probability)

> occur within an hour of a plane striking a nuclear



------------------  snipped   ------------------



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

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/