Comments on Frontline

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

>      Radsafers;
>      
>      I had the pleasure of watching "Nuclear Reaction" last night on 
>      Frontline. I found the show to be balanced and factual. It used simple 
>      language and examples from nature so that the evidence was easily 
>      understood by the general public.

"Nuclear Reactions" is more than a breath of fresh air! But let's not ignore
the many missing elements, some probably time constraints, but some really
missing, eg, Pu as a high risk: I expected Bernie Cohen to make another
appearance on his most effective commentary on the lack of risk, or at least
to consider Pu in its role at the top of decay chains of natural
alphas/betas/gammas, and much longer-lived, and its chemical nature as an
ingested risk (compared to, eg, radium, etc). 

Also to consider spent fuel as a volume and a risk: ie, how much coal waste
would there be from the energy produced by 40 high-burnup assemblies in a
dry-storage container. (And how would they be disposed of? besides your lungs! 
) 

When "nobody would say" that disposing of waste could be sure to be harmless,
where is, eg, the 1977? American Physical Society study and statement that it
is inconceivable for HLW in deep geology to return to the surface in a
concentration to be a risk to man (even with the "linear model", much less 
following the points made by John Moulder about risks from levels of
radiation, see eg, HPS incoming President Otto Raabe's presentations on the
lack of health effects from radium in beagles and humans). Many other studies
that use arithmetic to consider actual inventories and chemical forms of aged
spent fuel say the same. (Name any that do not! Consider especially Bernie
Cohen's strong points in his books that even using the anti's numbers - when
they are pushed to give any - there are differences of a factor of 3-4, or 10, 
etc in various analyses that are irrelevant to the conclusions that nuclear
energy is far safer than alternatives.) 

These aren't complaints about the show, but opportunities to go further. We
need to laud the show but include/submit ideas for futher consideration and
discussion in urging that this show not be seen as a one-time effort that will 
fade quickly in the political arena. Anticipate the criticisms, and expect
that there will be some "balancing" response for the anti's. If we don't add
to the critical review, we won't have a potential place to articulate
additional views. From a couple of conversations, I expect there are many
others who have small or large points to add. Don't hesitate to make them when 
responding to Frontline. They need fodder to work from, in addition to what
they have already gotten in the can, especially from response. 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
      
>      I can see why the Anti-Nukes were upset by the airing of the show.
>      
>      My two favorite parts were:
>      
>      1. An interviewer asked Ralph Nader what he would suggest if fossil 
>      and nuclear were unsafe. His reply; solar and wind power!!!
>      
>      2. They interviewed a female anti-nuclear activist who (daily) 
>      measures the radioactivity that is emitted by Three Mile Island. The 
>      interviewer asked her if she had bothered to measure the radon 
>      concentration in her home. Her answer was.... NO, we have been 
>      building homes for thousands of years!
>      
>      I plan on writing Frontline to send my congratulations for a well 
>      written and produced commentary. I hope you all will spend a few 
>      moments to send your thoughts also.
>      
>      
>      Harry Anagnostopoulos, CHP
>      Dresden Station