Re: More Greenpeace intervention

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

sweis wrote:

OOOOO, I can't resist this one.


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.

I thought when I started reading this that it might be something
worthwhile.  But ----- 


> 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.

See my reply to Rick.

I trust that 
> 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. 

No kidding.  Greenpiece has done more to hurt this planet than many
other organizations, including the US Federal Government.

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 don't support ANY of Greenpiece's efforts!

> 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.

If there is I haven't seen it.  But, we radsafers don't stoop to
propaganda.  Our aim is to get the truth out into the world.  In the
end, the truth will win.
 
> 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.

It is none of the above.  In the end, the truth will win.

> 
> 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. 

If the @#$%^& anti nuclear people would just get out of the way, we
could dispose of the waste for a fraction of the cost that they are
forcing us to spend.  Chris doesn't seem to know that the antis set up a
red herring in the waste issue.  They said that there is no way to
dispose of the waste and then they do everything they can to prevent any
new waste facility from opening.  When WIPP starts operating, they will
have lost.  We know how to dispose of the waste safely.  Let's get on
with it.


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.

I see that the antis propaganda has taken root and flourished.

 > 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. 

Yup. And beliefs can get you in trouble, especially when they don't
reflect reality. Wait until you freeze in the dark, or rather, when your
kids or grand kids do.  

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.

More anti nuke propaganda.  Solar and wind are too dilute to do much
good.  You could never power NYC or LA with solar without giving up most
of the state of New York or California.  I don't think the
environmentalists would approve of losing Yosemite and King's canyon for
mere electricity.  Solar doesn't work when it's dark.  The wind doesn't
always blow.  Both are more risky than nuclear according to Inhaber. 
Conservation is OK up to a point.  Conservation is not an energy source.

But then, to each his own opinion.  Never mind the facts.  History will
be the judge.  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov