[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SNF Shipments
I think you miss my point which, simply stated is:
Logic and reason are ineffective weapons when you
are fighting against emotion and bias.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jack_Earley@RL.gov>
To: <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; <tstead@ntirs.org>; <Chris.Marthaller@wipp.ws>;
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: SNF Shipments
> I don't believe in "accidents" in general, so I don't consider it "lucky"
> that there haven't been any releases. There haven't been releases because
of
> design and control. I believe there's a saying that the people who are
most
> prepared and work hardest are the most "lucky."
>
> Jack Earley
> Radiological Engineer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:11 PM
> To: Tim; Marthaller, Chris; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: Re: SNF Shipments
>
>
> Your argument seems reasonable to me. BUT, if I were
> a dedicated anti-nuke or a politician, it would only prove that --
> we have been luckey so far-------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim <tstead@ntirs.org>
> To: Marthaller, Chris <Chris.Marthaller@wipp.ws>;
> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:54 PM
> Subject: RE: SNF Shipments
>
>
> > There have been over 3000 shipments of SNF thus far,
> > some involving severe accidents. At no time has any
> > radioactive material been released as a result of the
> > accident.
> >
> > The only thing that the anti's have ever found
> > contrary was some situation where liquid was
> > transported (I find that hard to believe, but let's
> > run with it) and there was a minor spill when it was
> > opened up on-site. That spill, of course, was
> > contained to the *immediate* vicinity.
> >
> > In other words, they don't have a dog in that race.
> > It has been brought up many times, Chris. They just
> > refuse to listen. For example, they claim that we
> > only have limited experience (~3000 shipments) and
> > thus we cannot gauge future sucesses on a *limited*
> > history. That does two things. First, it neglects
> > the *perfect* safety record of millions of miles of
> > European transport. Second, it flies in the face of
> > their argument against nuclear power plants (which do
> > have quite a bit of operating history with a fantastic
> > safety record and perfect radiological protection
> > record).
> >
> > So, how can they claim that we don't have enough
> > history to prove it's safety when they do not look at
> > the history of nuclear power to gauge it's safety?
> >
> > Tim
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/