[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Bhopal, radiation, and risk standards



> There is no human activity, or inactivity, that is without risk.



In the context that Don uses it below, that statement is true and important.

But it is also often used as a sucker punch.  For example, the risk of

getting hit by a flying pig is zero.  Not small, but sero.  There is no such

risk, because pigs can't fly (in the real world we live in). (Don't suggest

jet-assisted, genetically-modified pigs of a type not yet discovered.

That's where engineering realism trumps sci-fi speculation.)



It is equally true that a reactor casualty to a modern LWR plant or its fuel

cannot kill hundreds of thousands of people.  The real-world laws of

materials, heat transfer, diffusion, suspension of particles, etc.  simply

prevent it.  It is not "highly improbable."  It is demonstrably impossible,

and we should say so. Just one factor in the solution, which is enough by

itself to demostrate impossibility, is that the megadeath predictions depend

on thousands of people that got trivial radiation doses, dying because

others also received trivial doses.  That reasoning has been universally and

publicly denounced as invalid, yet people keep using it and we won't refute

it.



And so the record stands.  Nuclear power is risky.



Ted Rockwell



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of

dckosloff@FIRSTENERGYCORP.COM

Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:45 PM

To: Ted de Castro

Cc: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; A Karam;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Bhopal, radiation, and risk standards





Although the CHOICE issue is conceptually important, in reality it does not

exist for many "low-risk" human activities.   When anti-nukes use it is is

simple fraud.  For example, imagine that you are a child who has chosen to

go outside and play during recess while you are in elementary school.

Although, as a small child, you would have most certainly evaluated your

risk of death from using playground equipment, you probably would not have

evaluated your risk of death from a transportation accident during recess.

Such risks are not only ever present, but there are actaully people who

have really been killed from such risks coming to sad fruition.  For

example, when Senator Heinz died in a helicoptor crash, his helicopter and

the plane that collided with it landed in a school playground and also

killed two children.  Those children had not made a CHOICE to pilot a

helicopter or a plane.  They had not even made a CHOICE to ride in a

helicopter or plane.   It is highly unlikely that they made their CHOICE to

play in the playground after considering the probability of playground

death due to a transportation accident.   In the US alone, there are

thousands of similar examples each year where people have really been

killed by another person's CHOICE.  None of them have involved the use of

nuclear power.  How many other real examples would you like to have?  I am

sure that you can think of many yourself.  If you can't think of any

examples right now, stay aware of the concept in the future and it won't be

long before you have several of your own examples.



There is no human activity, or inactivity, that is without risk.

Don Kosloff

Perry, OH









                      Ted de Castro

                      <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>             To:       A Karam

<paksbi@rit.edu>

                      Sent by:                      cc:

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

                      owner-radsafe@list.van        Subject:  Re: Bhopal,

radiation, and risk standards

                      derbilt.edu







                      12/07/2004 01:43 PM

                      Please respond to Ted

                      de Castro













You covered most points except the issue the anti's keep coming back to

- the CHOICE issue.  They feel they can choose to drive or not but

object to a low level radiation exposure they they feel is imposed upon

them; that they cannot choose to avoid.





-----------------------------------------

The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal

and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this

message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for

delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you

have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,

distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you

have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately,

and delete the original message.



************************************************************************

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/