Re: More Greenpeace intervention -Reply

[DAVID HARRISON <DHARRISON@doe.lanl.gov>]

Mr. Beyer, it is ironic that your opposition to nuke power is supposedly
based on economic and environmental factors.  Haven't been looking at
all the threads re: this subject, eh?  Not to reinvent the wheel, I refer you
to Alex Gabbard's "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger".  I
believe the address to be: 
www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

It is true that nuclear power does indeed place food on the table and
roofs over people's heads and electricity for the fridge and TV for
thousands of Terrans, something wrong with that?  I am sure that the
first thing on our minds, those who support nuke power, is "Thank God
for nuclear energy!  If it wasn't for it, I'd be forever laterally mobile"...I'll
have to think about that one.  And the amount of jobs created by
windmills is...?

DPH

>>> sweis <sweis@roadrunner.com> 12/10/96 10:53am >>>
At 09:29 AM 12/10/96 -0600, you wrote:
Radsafers

I am a systems administrator who will from time to time take a look at the
Radsafe discussions before I pass them on their intended audience, a
co-worker in the radiation professional community. I trust I am not
overstepping any bounds by jumping into your discussion but the
Greenpeace thread caught my eye and I hope an "outsider" might enrich
the discussion.

It seems to me that Rick Piccolo brings a refreshing an enlightened
perspective to the discussion when he said:

>While I don't agree with all the policies and activities of
>Greenpeace et al, they do some good things in the world and I
>appreciate the fact that they do. If we were all cut from the
>same cloth, the world would truly be one huge mess.

Greenpeace is an organization that is effective in advancing their goals
through emotionalism, not scientific reasoning. This is unfortunate for it
causes them to sometimes advance policies that are not beneficial to the
environment or are not economical. I support many of Greenpeace's
efforts. I wish they could temper some of their well-intentioned, but
wrong-headed actions with a more rigorous examination of economic
and environmental issues.

I encourage the "Free Spirit" to share information with Greenpeace. The
confrontational attitude that both the Radsafe community and
Greenpeace often present is counterproductive to goals which I believe
both communities share; economic progress and environmental
protection. Perhaps someone in the Radsafe community could invite a
Greenpeace member to join the Radsafe discussion list.

To those who would counter propaganda with propaganda of their own,
there is a better way. 

On a broader subject, I often hear strong voices in the radsafe
community supporting nuclear power. In my more cynical moments I
wonder if this support is based on a desire in the radsafe community for
job security, career opportunities, and personal gain. Other times I think it
is an enchantment with the power of technology. 

My oposition to nuclear power is based on economic and environmental
reasons. I do not believe there can be a full accounting of the costs of
nuclear power because the cost of safely dealing with the waste is a
great unknown. Everytime I hear someone say that nuclear power costs
x cents per kwhr, I know that this calculation is grossly incomplete since
I believe all costs in the process should be taken into account. When
these figures are given they can not take into account the cost of waste
disposal, since this is not known. I also think that the estimates of the
cost of nuclear power do not adequately reflect the massive research
and regulatory subsidies that the nuclear power industry has recieved
since its inception. 

It seems that the realized cost of nuclear power has gone from too
cheap to meter, to 10 cents/kwhr, to 15 cents/kwhr, to.......?? Any
guesses what nuclear power really costs? A guess is all anyone could
offer.

I believe that the implementation of nuclear power was a tragic and
costly historical mistake. I also believe that if all the research, money, and
political and military support that went into developing nuclear power,
went into the development of sustainable energy(solar, wind,...) and
conservation we could now have in place an economically and
environmentally sound source of energy.

Sincerely,

Christopher Beyer