Re: Coal vs. Nuclear -Reply

[damcclure@Lanl.GOV (Donald A. McClure 7-3243 DX)]

I would say that Dr. Cohen is the master of taking accepted positions (Radon
is bad for you) and turning them to show that even if you ignore data to the
contrary and take one of those accepted positions then nuclear fuel cycle
activities are still beneficial to society.

He might even agree that this argument supports coal if you believe low
doses are good for you.  But, based on the epidimilogical (sp?) data, some
of us might even say that there is no observable effect for Radon exposure
anyway.

The beat goes on.

>
>Agreed. I almost wrote a note after I saw what Bernie said. But, I know
>that he knows how his numbers are generated. Al.
>
>*** Reply to note of 12/05/95 08:31
>To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE
>
>Subject: Re: Coal vs. Nuclear -Reply
>
>Bernie Cohen wrote in part:
>
>>The dominant consideration in radiation hazards from coal vs.
>>nuclear is from release of U, Th, and Ra that will eventually become
>>radon. The coal releases will eventually cause about 30 deaths per
>>GWe-y while nuclear power, by removing uranium from the ground, will
>>eventually save hunreds of lives per GWe-y.
>
>This type of argument is good if you believe, as I do,  that low doses of
>radiation probably (not certainly) carry a risk.  If you believe, as Al has
>stated he does, that low doses (and especially those from radon which
>is what we are talking about here) are beneficial, then this particular
>argument should be made in favor of coal. Not so?
>
>
>Best wishes
>
>Paul Frame
>Professional Training Programs
>ORISE
>framep@orau
>
>