[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Greenpeace again



I do agree with most of your inetrvention Mr. Beyer except when you
justify
your position on costs and give "natural" alternatives. You see, in
Quebec (Canada) we tried to go "the green way" and use
hydro-electricity (we only have one commercial nuclear power plant in
Quebec, 22 in Canada). But guess what ? Hydro-Electricity seemed
cheap at the time until Natives (and even people of  the States !)
started to claim (I don't want to start a debate on the exactness of
their request) that it was flooding (I can imagine that) their hunt
territory, they need the territories to eat, survive, etc. Well, now
we have to, more or less, pay in advance for the territory and spend
millions on feasibility studies. And again, Greenpeace and other
groups are in the game !

Yes it is difficult to calculate the cost of nuclear energy because
of the waste, but, using the same logic, should I evaluate the cost
of loosing 1000 square km of hunting territory under water over a
period of 1000 years ?

I do agree with you that people in the nuclear industry are very
eager to show you that the hazards are under control and that you
have to die of something (most likely  because of the cigarette or
the car...). But can you blame them ? How many fatal accidents can be
attributed to nuclear energy for the past 10-20 years? How about coal
industry ?

Finally, you are correct, with the amount of money spent on nuclear
energy, we could have developed by now a green source of energy. (Or
is it true ?) But what I'm sure  is that the atom IS ALSO NATURE and
we can also invest on nuclear research to reduce the hazards and
maybe (we saw that in an other discussion)  the structure of the atom
to render an element less active (hum...).

In any case, we should make sure not to repeat the same pattern that
I observe with Greenpeace ,sometimes: BIAS.

Let's keep talking and if anyone knows someone from Greenpeace, show
that person this debate...


Stephane Jean-Francois Phys. Eng.
RSO
Merck Frosst Canada
stephane_jeanfrancois@merck.com
This opinion is mine and do not involve my employer.



 ----------
From: sweis
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: More Greenpeace intervention
Date:  December 10, 1996 12:50

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