[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: GAO Report on Spent Nuclear Fuels
Other suggestions for "used nuclear fuel":
"Previously Enjoyed"
"Slightly Diminished"
"Partially Utilized"
"Second Hand"
"Hand-Me-Down"
"Like New"
"Paid $61 million new....Used only once..."
"Mixed breed.....only to family with fenced yard..."
"Must sell.....getting divorce..."
"Starts every morning.....Daily driver..."
All levity aside, we aren't going to mend the ignorance of the media/public by using different phrasing. What needs to be addressed, I believe, is a concerted effort to educate the public. Too many of the notions which prevail among the masses are derived from sci-fi movies and the frantic rantings of newscasters trying to make their career. Perhaps one of those "....For Dummies" books should be churned out on the subject?
Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Orthen [mailto:rorthen@EARTHSCIENCES.NET]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 7:42 AM
To: Otto G. Raabe; Susan L Gawarecki; RADSAFE
Subject: RE: GAO Report on Spent Nuclear Fuels
DOE has substituted "used nuclear fuel" in some of its NEPA documents.
Perhaps "preowned nuclear fuel" would be better vis a vis "preowned cars?"
Rick Orthen
Earth Sciences Consultants, Inc.
Export, PA
724/733-3000
rorthen@earthsciences.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Otto G. Raabe
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 5:00 PM
To: Susan L Gawarecki; RADSAFE
Subject: Re: GAO Report on Spent Nuclear Fuels
August 14, 2003
The terminology "spent nuclear fuel" is really misleading to Congress and
the general public. It sounds as if used fuel is expended and useless. In
fact, there is as much or more fissile material in used fuel rods as in new
fuel rods. Most U.S. used nuclear fuel could be re-used without processing
in a CANDU reactor.
Anyway, the fact that used fuel should be reprocessed is not understood by
most, especially when it is called "spent nuclear fuel".
Can we change the terminology?
Otto
**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
(Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
University of California, Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other
use of the email by you is prohibited.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************************
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/