Re: Saturn Probe Pu Power?

[fhf <maay100@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>]

Franz Schoenhofer

Dear Franz,						May 9, 1997

	I always enjoy reading your pithy comments, and usually you are 
on target. I do agree with your feelings about the irrational responses of 
people to radiation problems. On the other hand, I must register an 
objection to your lumping 'environmentalists' into this irrational group.

	The problem of environmental contamination and damage, extermination
of species, and the ongoing loss of biodiversity which has been brought 
about by the ever increasing world population, diappearance of natural 
habitats and industrialization is one which must be seriously addressed at
the highest levels of government. In my opinion, the matter is more 
important in the long run than any conceivable radiation hazard (with the 
possible exception of nuclear war). It is incorrect to give a negative 
label to all  environmentalists, even though some may be misdirected 
concerning radiation problems.

		Sincerely yours,

		Mike Quastel MD PhD
		Head, Inst. of Nuclear Medicine
		Soroka Medical Center
		POB 151, Beer Sheva, Israel 84101
		Fax 972-7-6400765
		Email: maay100@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
	



 On Tue, 6 May 1997, Schoenhofer wrote:

> Schoenhofer
> Habichergasse 31/7
> A-1160 Wien
> AUSTRIA
> Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
> Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
> e-mail: schoenho@via.at
> 
> ----------
> > Von: Chris Davey <cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca>
> > An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Betreff: Re: Saturn Probe Pu Power?
> > Datum: Montag, 05. Mai 1997 23:32
> > 
> > Perhaps I should have been more explicit.  My friend does not have a
> > science background, he is studying at the University of Alberta, I think
> > doing a degree suitable for becoming a teacher.  He has looked at the
> > address where more of this 'interesting stuff' resides, and has obviously
> > found it to be convincing.  This is another example of the problem
> > involved in convincing the general public that this stuff is pure
> > paranoia.  I'd like to think I could do that for him, and, as an
> > extension, perhaps the same information could be used more generally.
> > This web site is certainly well organized, and I know from past postings
> > here on radsafe that it is hardly unique.  I could try to answer each
> > point on a 'point by point' basis, but I don't think I have enough
> > 'credibility as an expert' to stand a chance of convincing him.  Sorry,
> > the posts about fish, bowling balls and fertilization are cute, but they
> > won't work for such a person.
> > 
> > Address was:  http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~icousin/
> > 
> > Thanks again.  Perhaps someone from NASA is on here who could answer?
> > 
> > Chris Davey
> >         RSO  Cross Cancer Institute  11560 University Avenue
> >         Edmonton   Alberta   Canada  T6G 1Z2
> >         (403)432-8616   fax 432-8615    email cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca
> > 
> >
> ...........................................................................
> .................
> 
> In my office I write on what was intended to be a place mat. The
> inscription reads, "I have made up my mind, do not disturb me with the
> facts". For this kind of people it seems to be pure waste of time, to try
> to discuss on the basis of facts. This problem is not restricted to nuclear
> related subjects. Does anyone ask a aircraft pilot how to make cheese? Does
> anyone ask a cheesemaker how to fly an aeroplane? Do you go to a grocer
> store, when you want to place your money in the stock exchange? (Find more
> examples.....) But on nuclear matters everybody is an expert and can tell
> the people who have learnt matters for decades and worked with it for
> decades, what nuclear power really is like.But again - is this really
> restricted to nuclear power? Politicians make politic with the help of
> opinion polls, where people are asked about their opinion about things, of
> which they do not understand anything. Should not the politicians and the
> opinion leaders instead try to stay on the ground?
> 
> Sorry, I got a little angry. I deleted the original message - but I think I
> read something about the deadly plutonium, which is the most toxic chemical
> on the earth. Not to talk about the difference of Pu-238 and Pu-239, but
> has nobody wondered, why the maximum permissible levels are much higher
> than for Ra-226 and Ra-228, Pb-210 and Po-210? So please note, that the
> most toxic chemical has been produced by "nature". 
> 
> You wrote that your friend wants to become a teacher. The so called
> environmentalists are very clever - they work on a long term scale. They
> started for instance in Austria in the middle of the seventies and their
> targets were then young people and (young) teachers. Well - they succeeded
> to educate them and to disseminate their ideas to the younger generation. 
> 
> Franz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>