[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/