Greenpeace again

[sweis <sweis@roadrunner.com>]

Radsafers-

It seems my initial post has generated quite a response. I would like to
thank everyone in the radsafe community for giving me the opportunity to
join in your discussions. I realize that this thread goes way beyond the
scope of radiation safety. I intend to review all the comments and post one
summary.

One factual correction that I would like to make is:

Al Tschaeche said:

>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.  

WIPP is a DOE facility intended to dispose of DOE-generated TRU waste.
Perhaps some
waste from DOE research reactors will end up in WIPP, but as far as spent
fuel rods from commercial reactors going to WIPP, it is not currently planned.

If AL meant to say that the opening of WIPP will pave the way for other
disposal areas, that would be debateable.

Thanks again for the opportunity to voice an opinion. 

Christopher Beyer
sweis@roadrunner.com

My original post follows.


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