Re: WIPP shipment through Albq. NM

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

The fog defense statement was my attempt at humor.  Obviously, I'm not about

to quit my day job!



My initial posting simply stated that placarded shipments should avoid going

thru  a city if a suitable alternate route is available.  I also

acknowledged that there may be cases where there is no such alternate route,

e.g., getting out of Long Island.  Exactly what is unreasonable about that?



I'm also getting tired of the argument that we should spend less on "heavily

regulated and protected low and intermediate rad waste shipments" and more

on chemical, ... safety.  There are two problems with that:  1.  Spending

less on  radiological shipments would not necessarily mean spending more on

other safety issues.  2.  Nonradioactive hazardous shipments, safety, and

environmental issues are already heavily regulated.



BTW, if I'm missing something, here, please let me know, but I do not see

how the Albq. hearing will accomplish much more than allowing the public to

let off steam.  DOT preemption powers are well-established.  An  "I know

better than  you." presentation will accompish nothing more than reinforcing

public concerns.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com







"Stabin, Michael" wrote:



> > defending nuclear power plants with fog.

> > You are apparently using this concept to defend your arguments.

>

> I think everyone here is making fairly clear-headed arguments, we just

> have a difference of opinion. Speaking as a member (so I don't have to

> speak as moderator, hint, hint), I think we could all tone down the

> rhetoric and focus less on personalities and more on issues and have a

> better discussion.

>

> > The issue isn't which is more dangerous - a gasoline tanker

> > or a TRU waste shipment. It's what reasonable actions can be

> > taken to assure public safety AND address public concerns.

>

> Yes, *reasonable* is exactly the issue here, and is a long running

> discussion on this list. Are we making the best use of funds when we go

> to these lengths to protect against relatively low risk activities and

> ignore other relatively high risk activities? As has been documented

> here and elsewhere many times, the actual number of real human beings

> who are poisoned or die each year from accidents with chemical toxic

> agents is high. Could we not spend some more attention there and less on

> these already very heavily regulated and protected low and intermediate

> rad waste shipments? Do we need media helicopter crews trailing every

> rad waste shipment in the US as if they were the infamous white Ford

> Bronco? Many think not, and are not "elitist" for saying so, they're

> just making a reasonable argument.

>

> Mike

>

> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Vanderbilt University

> 1161 21st Avenue South

> Nashville, TN 37232-2675

> Phone (615) 343-0068

> Fax   (615) 322-3764

> Pager (615) 835-5153

> e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

> internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com

>

>