re: re: Greenpeace

["Houser Brett MSM GRPP US" <brett.houser@usgr.MHS.CIBA.COM>]

Radsafers,

I have enjoyed the lively discussion concerning the 
Enviro-Issues/Greenpeace/Anti-Nukes.
As we all know, there are extreme opinions on both sides of these important 
issues.  Fortunately,  most of the population resides somewhere in the 
middle of this opinion continuum.

Well, If Radsafe is mostly pro nuke, we only get this side of the story. 
 Below is a listing for Nukenet, an anti-nuclear BB.  I suggest that we as a 
community (Radsafe) monitor other listservers both pro and con and initiate 
a dialog wherever possible.   But please note that the system manager states 
that users on nukenet will be "promptly removed from the list" for 
pro-nuclear postings.

Other Listservers are available at earthlink.org.  Send a request to 
listproc@envirolink.org, in the body of the text request LISTS for a listing 
of BB.  Some interesting stuff there.


Thanks
Brett.Houser@usgr.mhs.ciba.com

>>>Opinions all mine<<<<<<

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Dear user,

your request

                       SUBSCRIBE NUKENET  name

has been successfully processed.

Welcome to list NUKENET (nukenet@envirolink.org). The system has recorded
your address as

                       #############################

and it is required that you send your postings from that address, unless the
list does not require subscription for posting.

The list's owners are mxe115@psu.edu .

You should contact them if there are any problems.

Please do not send requests to this list; instead direct them to:

                       listproc@envirolink.org

The system has assigned you an initial password:
You may change it by sending the following request to 
listproc@envirolink.org:

               set NUKENET password  <new-password>

WARNING: You should NOT use your login password as this is not a secure
mechanism.

This password is to be used when when you wish to change the address you are 
s
ubscribed with.
In this case, issue the following request to listproc@envirolink.org:

               set NUKENET address  <new-address>


To get more information on how to use this service, please send the command
HELP in a line by itself in a mail message to listproc@envirolink.org.

To signoff from the list, email to listproc@envirolink.org with the 
following
request:

               signoff NUKENET
or
               unsubscribe NUKENET


 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to NukeNet.  So that we can network more easily and serve you
better, we request that you send the following information about yourself
to catalyst@envirolink.org

State of residence (city optional):
Interest in nuclear issues:
 Do you work in the industry?  If so, which company(ies)?
 Do you work with environmental activist groups?  If so, which one(s)?
How did you find out about NukeNet?

I hope you find NukeNet useful,

Mike Ewall
catalyst@envirolink.org
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---
NukeNet is a listserv (email mailing list) for distribution of news,
factsheets
and action alerts regarding nuclear issues, predominantly nuclear power and
nuclear waste, but including nuclear weapons and some energy issues.

NukeNet was formed shortly after the Conference around the 15th anniversary
of the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
This conference took place on March 28, 1994, 15 years after the partial
meltdown of the TMI nuclear power plant.

NukeNet is the first list devoted solely to the distribution of anti-nuclear
information.  While there are many newsgroups and forums for anti-nuclear
issues on systems such as the EcoNet/IGC network, these are not available to
many of us who are on the Internet through different service providers.
NukeNet exists to fill this void.  Please feel free to spread the word about
the existance of this list to other anti-nuclear activists.

NukeNet seeks to ultimately make available as much low-volume, high-content
information as possible.  While NukeNet material is not yet archived, we 
hope
to have all of previously-sent postings archived and available on the World
Wide Web in the not too distant future.

 ------------
Note to Critical Mass Energy Project (CMEP-list) subscribers:

All materials from the CMEP-list are automatically forwarded to the NukeNet
list.  If you don't want to receive two copies of all CMEP postings you can
sign off of the CMEP-list by sending a message to LISTPROC@ESSENTIAL.ORG
and writing only this in the message: SIGNOFF CMEP-LIST
 ------------

To sign off of NukeNet, should you decide you don't want to remain on the
list,
send email to:  LISTPROC@ENVIROLINK.ORG  with the command UNSUBSCRIBE 
NUKENET
(Don't write your name as you did when signing on).

To post info to the list, send it to NUKENET@ENVIROLINK.ORG

** Posted material should be as short and to-the-point as possible.
** Posted material should be of concern to other activists other than those
   involved in your local struggle.
   (i.e. the reopening of the Barnwell, S.C. "low-level" nuclear waste dump
has
   implications in the sitings in all other states.)
** Action alerts, conference announcements, fact sheets, and *summarized* 
news
   releases or brief status reports on a key struggle are all fair game for
   NukeNet distribution.

If you're uncertain whether it is appropriate to post a certain piece, 
please
send it to CATALYST@ENVIROLINK.ORG for approval (and free spell-checking).
With
rare exception, your article will be posted.  Deliberately posting false,
misleading or pro-nuclear materials will have you promptly removed from the
list.

HELP IS HERE:  There are many experienced activists on this list.  Should 
you
need information on a certain issue, there is most likely someone on NukeNet
who can answer your question.  Any questions should be sent to the
CATALYST@ENVIROLINK.ORG address.

NukeNet was founded by Mike Ewall, director of the "Low-Level" Radioactive
Waste Leadership Network of the Pennsylvania Environmental Network (PEN) 
with
the technical assitance of the EnviroLink Network and the support of those
whose names are always at the top of the NukeNet postings.



 ----------
From: O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; DDA.VALUE=radsafe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list; houser, brett
Subject: re: re: Greenpeace
Date: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 12:18AM

<<File Attachment: BDY1211.TXT>>
DATE: Dec 10 20:48:41 1996 -06:00 relative to GMT
IPMessageID: 9611108502.AA850272347(a)CCMAIL.lbl.gov

FROM: [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; 
DDA.VALUE=radsafe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]

AUTHORIZED: [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; DDA.VALUE=jack 
topper(a)CCMAIL.lbl.
            gov]

TO: Multiple recipients of list [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; 
DDA.VALUE=radsa
    fe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]

SUBJECT: re: re: Greenpeace
REPLY TO: [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; 
DDA.VALUE=radsafe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.
          edu]

IMPORTANCE: normal
AUTO FORWARDED: FALSE
PRIORITY:
ATTACHMENTS: c:\temp\BDY1211.TXT

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 --
     On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:40:48 -0700 (MST),
     Christopher Beyer wrote:

     >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.

     I have been in the nuclear industry since 1967, in the military world,
     the power reactor world, and now in the research world.  I'm not
     worried about job security, career opportunities, or personal gain -
     at least, not very much.  Everyone in this country should worry a
     little bit about these things.  It helps keep us anchored in reality.

     I will admit to a certain attachment to the technology - it's the
     cleanest, least invasive process we've ever found for generating
     electricity in mass quantities.  But, if we ever manage to harness the
     fusion process, I'll be one of the first in line to call for
     dismantling all of the fission-type power reactors in the world!

     >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. Every time 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.

     >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.

     Chris, there will probably never be a FULL accounting of the costs of
     ANY form of energy production, but I am convinced that the main reason
     the cost of nuclear waste disposal is a "great unknown" is because
     agitators, intervenors and pseudo-environmentalists insist on putting
     roadblock after roadblock, pothole after pothole in the way.   They
     have done everything in their power to derail every attempt to build a
     waste disposal facility, then use the issue of ever-larger waste
     accumulations as a hammer against the industry, saying "But, what
     about the waste?"  Give me a break.

     No one, least of all the nuclear industry workforce, wants to
     irresponsibly dispose of radioactive waste.  We all want to do the
     right thing.  The waste CAN be disposed of - SAFELY.  The technology
     is simple.  It is real.  It is here now.  All we have to do is
     implement it.

     That said, let me also say that the current cost of dealing with
     radioactive waste is greatly inflated.  It is being driven primarily
     by costly-to-implement regulations that may have been born of "good"
     intent, but that are of dubious real value.  And there are far too
     many of them.  Many of those regulations are simple knee-jerk
     reactions to a public opinion that has been shaped by a very small,
     very vocal, minority.

     I believe that most (way more than half - more like 65-70%) of the
     public doesn't HAVE an opinion of their own;  they simply regurgitate
     what they hear from the news pundits, who are in turn simply giving
     voice to the drivel that is the "very small, very vocal, minority
     opinion" - all in the ever noble effort inform the public (really, to
     sell newsprint and air time...)

     >I believe that the implementation of nuclear power was a tragic and
     >costly historical mistake. 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 won't argue that our government played a very large role in the
     development of nuclear power.  It was born out of military necessity;
     as to whether the necessity was real or perceived may be another
     question.  As it happens, nuclear power is an extremely efficient,
     safe means of propulsion for Navy vessels, and has served us extremely
     well in that capacity for the past forty years.  I believe adapting
     that process to shore based power stations was one of the more logical
     extension of military technology.

     >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.

     As to the use of wind power, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (among
     others, including our government) put quite a lot of effort and
     research bucks into wind generation facilities - without success.  If
     you've ever been to California, you might have seen the acres and
     acres of  "wind farms" located in the Altamont Pass and Tehachapi
     areas, or the PG&E research station at Benicia.  These are some of the
     windiest areas in the entire country - in short, an ideal place to tap
     the power of the wind.  Unfortunately, sometimes it blows too hard
     (shut them down, quick, before they come apart) or not hard enough
     (they won't start) or not at all (ditto).

     Hundreds and hundreds of  those windmills now sit idle, in various
     stages of dis-repair.  Virtually none are generating power.  Why?
     Because the cost of building and maintaining the machines exceeds the
     revenue they can generate, even when the utility is forced to buy all
     of the power they could generate (at exorbitant prices, too - the
     California Public Utilities Commission forced PG&E to pay more per
     kilowatt-hour [on the order of $.13/kwh] to the wind turbine owners
     than the utility could subsequently sell it for [on the order of
     $.10/kwh.)  Even considering the unrealistically high rates they were
     paid for their power by the utility, the only time the wind turbines
     were economically feasible was when the federal government gave tax
     incentives - SUBSIDIES - to the builders.  Once the tax incentives
     went away, so did the wind turbines.  Simple economics.  Now they're
     just an eyesore and a hazard to air navigation and freeway drivers
     (rubber-necking - they ARE impressive to look at.)

     I once read a comparison regarding energy production methods.  I wish
     I could locate it again.  In that document, solar energy production
     was compared to nuclear energy production (nuclear, yes, but it could
     just as easily have been a fossil fueled plant) in terms of land used
     for the process;   The nuclear facility was a two unit site with a
     capacity of 2.2 gigawatts occupying some 25 acres of land.  According
     to the report, in order to equal that amount of power output, a solar
     collector array would need to occupy 64 square miles, or roughly
     40,960 acres.

     The production of that much power assumed conditions of full sunlight,
     12 hours per day, 365 days per year and 100% conversion efficiency.
     We will never, ever reach 100% efficiency - that is impossible.  I
     believe the current technology is about 15-20%, so lets make an
     adjustment in the amount of land we'll need to produce 2.2 gigawatts
     by solar methods - let's increase that land figure to somewhere
     between 205,000 and 275,000 acres.  As to sunlight for 365 days per
     year - well, maybe in Arizona during a severe drought.  Any place else
     in this country, and their efficiency goes down fast (and the land use
     goes up...)

     Assuming you could build such an array, what is going to happen to the
     land it is built on?  There will not be a single ray of sunshine on
     that ground, ever.  What sort of effect will that have on the flora
     and fauna that currently occupy those 250,000+ acres?  It will likely
     be totally barren.  That's a fairly high environmental price to pay.
     Maybe we should space them apart just a little, to let some of that
     sunshine get to the ground for environmental purposes...let's go ahead
     and double the amount of land we need to build our array...that way,
     we'll only have half the impact per square foot!  Now we're up to
     500,000+ acres...

     Now that we've got our half million acres set aside (how much do you
     suppose that would cost?) where are all the solar collector arrays
     going to come from?  How much raw material will be required to produce
     them?  What quantity of acids and heavy metals and hydrocarbons and
     other toxic materials will we use/create/waste in the process?  How
     many millions - or billions - of solar cells will we need?  How long
     will they last?  How much do they cost?  How many people will be
     required to maintain them?  When they fail, how do we dispose of them?
     Are they a hazardous material?  What do we do when it rains?  How
     about after the sun goes down - or, more likely, between about four in
     the afternoon and ten in the morning?  What if we don't all live in
     Arizona?   Like wind turbines, solar panels are power sources "when
     able", not necessarily "when needed"...

     Remember, all this - and much more - is just part of what it would
     take to replace ONE nuclear plant site.  And if you think nuclear
     plants produce nasty, unconscionable volumes of waste and wreak untold
     amounts of irreparable environmental havoc, I'd advise you to never,
     ever set foot on the site of a coal fired power plant - or on one of
     the many strip mine sites necessary to support that plant.  Now, THERE
     is an environmental mess you could sink your teeth into!!


     ***  The opinions expressed above are just my own thoughts;  Nobody is
     paying me to say them_  ***

     Jack Topper
     Radiation Assessment Group
     Environmental Safety & Health Division
     Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory