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

RE: free speech

To: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>, "Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>, "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
Subject: RE: free speech
From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@cpcug.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 16:13:21 -0400
Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <000001c1f20d$aebb6d60$e72a5aa6@c0r1v2>
Reply-To: <tedrock@cpcug.org>

> Why not? Because you can't prove a negative

Mike, et al:

I don't think we ought to buy that as an easy out. If it is a fact that the decay heat in spent fuel is insufficient to vaporize and disperse fps, and if a fire won't do it, and if all you have, at most, is some ceramic pellets on the ground, I think in any reasonable public use of the word, it is "impossible" to create a public hazard this way.

Ted Rockwell

References:
- Re: free speech
  - From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Yucca Poll Sientific American
Next by Date: RE: free speech
Prev by thread: Re: free speech
Next by thread: Re: free speech
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread