[ RadSafe ] adjunct points and question about deep oceansubduction zone waste disposal

[Flanigan, Floyd]

Sounds like a good idea ... but try to get that one past GreenPeace. Logic has little to do with it in most cases.

Floyd

-----Original Message-----
From: jjcohen [mailto:jjcohen at prodigy.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:20 PM
To: Flanigan, Floyd; James Salsman; radsafe at radlab.nl; Kent, Michael D.
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] adjunct points and question about deep
oceansubduction zone waste disposal


Subduction disposal would be bothersome, problematic, and unnecessary. Why
not just simply let solidified waste sink to the bottom of deep ocean
trenches and forget about it. Given this were done, there in no way that any
significant human or biological exposure could result. The downside of this
approach is that it would be so easy and inexpensive  that the large sums of
money currently available for nucwaste research and activity would no longer
be available to those profiting from it.
Jerry Cohen


----- Original Message -----
From: Flanigan, Floyd <Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com>
To: James Salsman <james at bovik.org>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>; Kent, Michael D.
<Michael.Kent at nmcco.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] adjunct points and question about deep
oceansubduction zone waste disposal


>What is the opposition to ocean subduction zone disposal?

That whole 'borate the ocean for reactivity control' thing kind'a sticks in
my craw personally.

Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:11 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl; Kent, Michael D.
Subject: [ RadSafe ] adjunct points and question about deep ocean
subduction zone waste disposal


Michael Kent wrote:

 > Is this increase documented in any scientifically peer
 > reviewed papers, by scientist without an agenda?

Yes, by two of them, and I'm not going to post them again:
   http://radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2005-April/001198.html

 >... How about looking to where these munitions are made?

They are not burned where they are made, as far as I know.

 >... How do you know that any birth defect is not caused by
 > other factors of being in a theater of war?

Noncombatant cohort studies.

 >... the human body when exposed to an extreme amount of prolonged
 > stress (i.e. being in a war zone) suffers some very real side
 > affects that is analogous to being poisoned.

Stress was officially ruled out by the DoD in January.  Stress
does not cause birth defects.  The pyridostigmine bromide and
other inoculations were all ruled out by 2001.

 >... I think that with a lot of anti-nuclear people this has
 > become your religion.

I am not entirely opposed to nuclear power generation.  If the
United States would agree to dispose of its nuclear waste in
deep ocean subduction zones (as I seem to recall the French do)
then I would drop my opposition to nuclear power.  It would in
that case be one of the two most appropriate complements to wind
power, which is the only direct mitigation of greenhouse gas
effects.  As it is, all our stupid waste disposal pools are an
invitation to disastrous attacks.

What is the opposition to ocean subduction zone disposal?

Sincerely,
James Salsman


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe