Re: Making the "radioactive" choice

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

DamschenGA wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry, but I think the correct application of the principle would be to
> apply the "radioactive" option whenever it provides the greatest benefit at
> the lowest cost, not "when there is no 'non-radioactive' option available."

I wholeheartedly agree.  The anti nuclear people have forced the nuclear
options to be very, very expensive.  However, there are still some
nuclear industry services that are less expensive than the non-nuclear
ones.  When we think of using non-nuclear options in place of nuclear
ones, we play right into the hands of the antis.  We should, if we
believe that nuclear options really do offer the best approach (and I do
hope that all radsafers do), we should never suggest a non-nuclear
option when a nuclear one is available.  In almost all cases, the
nuclear option will be better, and, without the anti-imposed extra and
unnecessary costs, will be less costly.  Even uranium cuff links are
beneficial to some people and the detriment is zero.  Al Tschaeche
xat@inel.gov