Re: Coal vs. Nuclear

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

And the reason the American public does not favor the nuclear option is
because they are afraid of radiation. We, the radiation protection
experts have created that fear by not, at every turn, clearly explaining
that a little radiation MAY NOT hurt anyone and may, in fact, be
beneficial. WE MUST STOP SAYING "a little radiation may hurt you" and
start saying clearly, forcefully, and often: "a little radiation may NOT
hurt you." Let's be positive for a change. It is, after all, true that a
little radiation may NOT hurt you. It is also probably true that a
little radiation, not only WILL NOT hurt one, but is beneficial.
Obviously I am convinced, based on 3500 pieces of data in Dr. Luckey's
books, that hormesis is real. I will act on that conviction. Al
Tschaeche.

*** Reply to note of 12/04/95 12:01

From: ronald kathren
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: Coal vs. Nuclear
I hope that Mr. Vitalis is not attributing a lack of support for the nuclear
option of electrical generation to me.  Certainly I have never stated >'we
will not try to justify nuclear power' as seems to be implied in the Vitalis
statement. v

Having said that, let me note the words of the eminent mathematician George
Polya, who pointed out that two equally intelligent and rational people,
given the same set of data, may come to entirely opposite conclusions.  Mr.
Vitalis apparently has concluded that the nuclear option is 'orders of
magnitude' less risky than the coal option from his examination of the data,
and perhaps this is indeed the case, even when the psychological aspects are
factored in.  However, while we can do all the risk analyses we wish, and
indeed as health physicists we should continue to do this type of activity,
we also need to keep in mind that if the American public does not favor the
nuclear option, this is their privilege in our relatively free and
democratic society, no matter what conclusions we scientists come to
regarding risks.

Ron Kathren

   >
>On 12/1/95, Ron Kathren wrote in response to an inquiry on radioactive
>materials released by coal fired plants:
>
>
> ...the real purpose of this is to hope that we will not try to
> justify nuclear power by noting that coal fired plants release more
> radioactivity.  Such an overly simplistic comparison does not do our
> profession justice.  Let us not lost sight of our mission:
> PROTECTION OF PEOPLE (maybe especially workers) AND THE ENVIRONMENT
> FROM THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF RADIATION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
> REALIZING THE BENEFITS FOR MANKIND.
>
>I think everyone reading this believes that mankind is better served
>with electric power than without (ie. benefit to mankind).  The two
>top power production methods in the U.S. are burning coal and
>splitting atoms.  As health physicists it is true in strictest sense
>that our role in society is to protect the public and the worker from
>the harmful effects of radiation.  The discussion of relative risks,
>however, is right up our alley.  We are conditioned to balance risks
>with benefits routinely.  Risk analyses have been performed which
>quantify the risks involved with the entire process of various methods
>of power production.  They have been formulated using accepted
>practices and methodology.  Just because the answer comes up that
>nuclear power (including the ultimate disposal of the wastes and the
>potentials for accidents are factored in) is orders of magnitude less
>risky than mining and burning coal doesn't make it a biased study.
>When you say 'we will not try to justify nuclear power', it sounds
>like nuke plants are some kind of terrible mistake that the nuclear
>industry is trying make look benevolent.  Nuclear power needs no more
>justification.  The only thing wrong with it is that it's costly and
>the only reason its costly is that people somehow believe that
>radiation risk is far worse than any other kind.
>
>Sometimes I get the feeling from reading some of the postings on
>radsafe that there are professional HPs in various sectors that
>somehow feel the same way as the general public.  That is to say don't
>"bother me with the facts my mind's made up."
>
>Please, continue talking about relative risks!
>
>byrpv@ccmail.ceco.com
>Paul Vitalis
>Principal Health Physicist
>Byron Nuclear Power Station
>4450 N. German Church Road
>First Nuke Plant on the right
>Byron, Illinois 61101
>
>
>"We're running around here like we have our legs cut off!"
>
>                                                Wally Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>I'm joining this thread late, so perhaps this has already been brought up,
>>but are there not detectable releases of radioactivity during the burning of
>>fossil fuels?  Also, there is a great deal more variability in the quality
>>of fossil fuels in use - some areas of the world burn some pretty low grade
>>coal - as well as a lot less in the way of controls and regulation.
>>
>>Alan Enns
>>aenns@unixg.ubc.ca
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>