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

Fw: Environmentalism & the US Constitution



 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Environmentalism & the US Constitution

Ruth,
    I wrote a few sections of that GEIS (Rock Melt, etc). If you can track the conclusions from its  contents, I'd like to know how. As I recall, the conclusions were pretty much predetermined, and the voluminous contents were intended to give the impression that a thorough evaluation of possibilities led to those conclusions. As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing was a fraud! It did however change one mind-- my own. I started the project as an advocate of Rock Melt (I invented it), and finished as a proponent ocean disposal* based on its safety and cost-effectiveness.  Best regards,   Jerry
 
* Not sub-seabed disposal (which Sandia advocated), but just simply dumping it in deep ocean trenches. If you do the math, there is no way significant dose consequences could result--and it would be easy to do. Perhaps not politically easy, but certainly technically.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Environmentalism & the US Constitution

In a message dated 6/10/2003 11:44:07 PM Mountain Daylight Time, jjcohen@prodigy.net writes:

Rational analysis reveals this supposition is simply not true.
If you try to justify the NWPA as a reflection of inordinate public fear
then I think a strong case can be made that it serves more to aggravate this
fear than to placate it.


But I didn't, and don't.  The NWPA came basically from the 1980 GEIS on commercially generated radioactive waste and from USGS Circular 779, neither of which documents "reflected inordinate public fear."

But your mind is made up.  No use bothering you with history.

RuthF. Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com