Re: Norm's New Year Resolution may come true: DB may close

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

Jan. 3



	In reply to Richard Hess' request for an explanation of alternatives to

nuclear power plants Norm Cohen writes:  "You are also correct that I have

not 'quantified' alternatives - it's not my role as Coordinator for UNPLUG

Salem. What I usually do is point people to national groups that have the

resources and people to make plans and projections."



	Nice job of dodging, Norm -- the old 'it's not my job' excuse.



	Nevertheless, Norm refers RADSAFERs to the Institute for Energy and

Environmental Research (IEER), and to the Union of Concerned Scientists

(UCS).  (For a dated but useful assessment of the UCS see "The War Against

the Atom," by Samuel McCracken, Basic Books, 1982; pp. 108-112.  McCracken

presents several examples of the UCS's dishonesty.)



	Neither of the web sites appears to have a specific 20-year 'phase out

nukes' plan.  Can you recomment, Norm, a specific article or two;

especially on the IEER site, since it lists its articles by title?



	The UCS site has an internal link to references that support its claims.

I didn't count them, but I would say that well over half of the

"references" are to reports by citizens groups (all of them green, no

doubt), to UCS reports (it cites itself to support itself), or other

militantly environmental organizations such as the Clean Air Network, the

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Worldwatch.  These are not

exactly unbiased sources.



	The NRDC is probably better at litigating than it is at practicing

science.  According to the "Acknowledgements" page of its 1996 report

"Breath-Taking," "Since 1970, NRDC scientists and lawyers have been

working" to protect natural resources and improve the quality of man's

environment.  

Always with the "lawyers."



	The UCS touts wind power saying it has no emissions, no fuel to mine or

ship, no water pollution, and no wastes, although it does acknowledge that

the manufacturing and installation of wind turbines does contribute to

pollution.  When the turbines wear out or are de-commissioned they will be

waste that must be disposed of somehow.



	In an amusing admission against interest, the UCS page does say that "A

few wind projects have harmed some birds."  (Note the qualifiers "few" and

"some.")



	I have an Associate Press article (12-20-02) datelined Hagerstown, MD,

saying that Maryland state regulators "want to require developers of two

proposed wind power plants in western Maryland to shut down the giant

turbines during periods when the whirling blades could kill large numbers

of migratory birds."  (We have gone from "some" to "large numbers.")



	One turbine company has agreed to shut down its proposed windmill farm for

up to 18 hours per year if its 25 turbines are "found to kill more than 200

birds or bats per windmill in a 24-hour period".  Another company is in

talks with the state about longer shutdowns if its turbines cause similar

bird or bat mortality.



	I've never heard of a power reactor in the United States killing a bird,

bat, or even a human.  Have you, Norm?



Steven Dapra

sjd@swcp.com







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

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/