[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re: Hanford Site Cleanup Standards
I'd like to respond the some recent postings on this thread. The points
raised seem to be:
"The practices at Hanford were justified since they were supporting
'progress.' If we insist on safety rules, there won't be any
innovation." While the public used to perceive that progress is an end
in itself, that's no longer true. (Like it or not, perception is
reality.) Notice that General Electric has dropped the slogan,
"Progress is our most important product." It's now, "We bring good
things to life." Technology is not inherently good (or bad). It's up
to the proponent to make the case that the benefits outweigh the risks.
"They were well intentioned." I never said, otherwise. I'm not
suggesting criminal behavior; just that DOE has to be accountable for
what it did, and that we must identify and implement the lessons
learned.
"They have a better safety record than a lot of other industries." This
is the old comparative body count argument, revision n + 1. While this
may be true, it doesn't justify the practices. The current doctrine of
environmental accountability is not limited to the nuclear industry.
Look at what GE is facing, having to clean up the Hudson River where
there are PCB's from its operations.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.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/