[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: submarines and Norm



Spending more on RP at the beginning would have been one of the best investments

the industry could have made.



We should have either:  (1) established that there's no LNT, and that rad is the

same as any other hazard, or (2) gone with LNT and devoted the appropriate

resources to operational RP.  We seem to have done the worst of both worlds:

adopting LNT, but not devoting the required resources.  We're now stuck with the

0.454 kg of cure approach.



To the many responders who pointed out that DOD has the dubious advantage of

secrecy, let me respond.  That's true, but they realized that they would not be

able to coverup serious radiological problems.

Murray, you're still my hero.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:



> Another point is that the Navy does not have the same cost-benefit problems

> that the civilian power plants have.  We could expend more money and

> manpower of monitoring, since we did not have to show a profit.  We could

> have more stringent requirements than those of the civilian world, and would

> have the resources to meet them.

>

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> LCDR, USN (ret)

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD  20715-2024

>

> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Sandy Perle [mailto:sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET]

> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:56 PM

> To: William V Lipton; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: Re: submarines and Norm

>

> On 12 Apr 2002 at 13:06, William V Lipton wrote:

>

> > If the DOE and NRC (aka the old AEC) had adopted and enforced this

> > philosophy, I'm sure that we would not be facing the present level of

> > pubilc opposition.

>

> Bill,  I disagree. I believe the military use of safe, clean nuclear

> energy is considered acceptable solely on its own merits. There is

> little discussion about the technology and its use, there isn't a lot

> of press or documentaries on it, their problems aren't made public

> and, they aren't operating in a person's literal backyard.

> ************************************************************************

> 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/



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

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/