RE: LNT and resources [Was: Scientific responsibility]

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Ted,

I guess I should have asked you if you thought that

Admiral Richover's Naval Nuclear Power Program was

excessive and wasteful?  I believe that you are a big

advocate of his program.  Did you ever consider the

rules, regulations and inspection program excessive?



As one who had to work under the draconian rules and

suffer through the inspections, I would like to get

your impressions.



--- Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org> wrote:

> John:

> 

> Can't think of how dropping LNT will make a

> difference?  Try some big ones:

> They could have moved only a few people out of the

> Chernobyl area, and moved

> them back soon after.  Assure them that this amount

> of radiation will not

> hurt them.  Result? Avoid the greatly increased

> suicide, depression,

> alcoholism and unemployment now seen.  Plus

> $billions of compensation costs

> for "Chernobyl victims" by a government teetering on

> the brink of financial

> ruin.

> 

> Assuring Europeans that that the trivial radiation

> levels in the Chernobyl

> fallout is harmless might have prevented the

> estimated 100,000 additional

> induced abortions downwind.

> 

> Now apply that to US NPP evacuation plans.  The

> Indian Point power plant may

> well be closed down because FEMA rightly states that

> evacuating millions of

> people out of that area in a hurry is unworkable. 

> Some hospitals shut down

> nuclear medicine facilities because of the draconian

> requirements for

> controling dose levels from sources presumed safe

> inside a person's body are

> somehow dangerous in urine disposal systems.

> 

> Thinking only of protecting health, after a dirty

> bomb with Cs one would

> wash the stuff down the storm sewers and life would

> go on.  The residual

> contamination would be no more troublesome than from

> a serious oil or

> chemical spill.  But current guidelines would cordon

> off the region for

> decades, enabling some lucky corporations and

> scientists to glean billions

> of dollars for no benefit and giving terrorists the

> satisfaction of having

> really caused us pain.

> 

> Etc.  Do you really not understand this??

> 

> This is particularly egregious when the NCRP reports

> adopted as

> justification for this practice concede that the

> science does not provide

> any evidence of harm from LDR and that "most

> populations exposed to LDR do

> not show deleterious effects and most show

> beneficial effects."  So it can

> be justified only as "prudent."  Does this really

> strike you as prudent?

. . .



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.yahoo.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/