[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WIPP shipment through Albq. NM
My reply to Barbara also applies, here. You also seem to see some vast conspiracy.
If, as you stated, "... The so-called 'public'
that shows up at these meetings is the same small band of radiophobes,
pacifists, and anti-nukers..." they'll make a lot of noise, go home feeling important,
and that's it. Constantly disputing them point by point only validates their
arguments in the mind of the public, and encourages them to continue. Notice that, in
political campaigns, incumbants generally try to avoid debating their opponents, since
that increases their stature. Their opponents can say anything they want to an empty
chair, but it isn't as credible.
The worst thing to do is to state that your opponents are completely wrong, and then
screw up. That seems to be the history of the nuclear industry: Why do those 1 in
1E6 events seem to happen so often? That's why people are concerned. There are just
enough real events to cause mistrust of the "experts." If we are to survive, we
should concentrate less on debates and more on aggressively fixing actual and
potential problems.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Steven Dapra wrote:
> Jan. 12
>
> In response to Bill Lipton's posting earlier today, I am not using "fog"
> to defend anything. (His posting is below.)
>
> Speaking specifically of TRU shipments to WIPP, the "issue" is that public
> safety has already been addressed a thousand times over and "reasonable
> actions" have been taken to assure public safety. The so-called "public"
> that shows up at these meetings is the same small band of radiophobes,
> pacifists, and anti-nukers whose "concerns" about WIPP can not be addressed
> except by shutting down the site and permanently cancelling the entire
> project. Not only that, it would take another 20 years -- or more -- to
> close down the salt mine where some wastes are already stored, because of
> all the demands the anti-nukers would make about a "safe" closure.
>
> I know -- either personally or by reputation -- most of the anti-WIPP
> elements in Albuquerque. It is impossible to get a straight answer out of
> any of them about anything pertaining to WIPP or radioactivity. I know
> because I have tried. They do not represent the public at large, they are
> an infinitesimally small group of well-organized busybodies with an
> enormous political agenda and a penchant for hauling the DOE into court.
> (One of them was bragging last night about how her group has a suit pending
> against the DOE.) Their "concerns" are irrational and for that reason they
> do not count. They also do not count because they have no basis in science.
>
> At that hearing last night an anti-WIPPer got up to the microphone and
> said the WIPP trucks traveling through Albuquerque are irradiating people
> on the highway who drive near the WIPP trucks. Alpha particles in TRUPACTs
> are irradiating other drivers?? Alpha particles can't penetrate a sheet of
> paper. How in the name of Heaven are they going to get out of a TRUPACT??
>
> Do you really believe -- Bill -- that this is a rational concern? Does
> "democracy" mean we have to make public policy decisions based on palpable
> falsehoods about radioactivity? This irrational public you are so eager to
> listen to would like to shut down every power reactor in the country. Are
> you going to 'take your chances' with that too?
>
> Steven Dapra
> sjd@swcp.com
>
> - - - - -
>
> Bill Lipton's posting:
>
> "I enjoyed Kim Kearfott's posting about defending nuclear power plants
> with fog.
>
> "You are apparently using this concept to defend your arguments.
>
> "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. You may think that public concerns
> about TRU waste are irrational. Nevertheless, they still count. It's
> called democracy. Overall, I'll take my chances with an irrational pubic
> over having an elite group of 'the best and the brightest' tell me what's
> good for me."
>
> - - - END - - -
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/