[ RadSafe ] ocean disposal versus the status quo

[Syd H. Levine]

> You are either naive or disingenuous.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "James Salsman" <james at bovik.org>
> To: "Flanigan, Floyd" <Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com>
> Cc: "jjcohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:04 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] ocean disposal versus the status quo
>
>
>>I recommend approaching Greenpeace and the like with the choice between
>> the status quo, where we have the waste under a few dozen feet of water
>> leeching into groundwater drinking supplies, and miles of ocean water.
>> If the casking is done right, the eventual sediment will trap the
>> daughter and neighbor isotopes well enough to make no difference.
>>
>> Get them on record early in the debate saying whether ocean disposal
>> is any worse than the status quo, and then their eventual protests
>> that it isn't perfect will be weak.  None of the Greenpeace types is
>> going to defend the status quo, no matter how much they don't want
>> ocean disposal.
>>
>> The ideal is the enemy of the acceptable, but the status quo hates us
>> all and has giant fangs.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> James Salsman
>>
>> Floyd Flanigan wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>