[Date Prev][Date Next]
[cdn-nucl-l] Thanks for comments, Jaroslav, Jeremy, and George
In reply to my post, you wrote:
"This aspect of nuclear power has actually been calculated to constitute a
significant net benefit, in terms of long-term health impact, if one applies
the same kind of methodology used in the assessment of long-term risks of
SNF storage or permanent disposal."
"There is obviously a need for continued self-education !"
I read your April 02 post, but I could not find the source you mentioned.
Please direct me to the study in case.
As for the "significant net benefit", you'd probably be right if you were
able to always show the properties of a field at a point, when starting with
the value of a surface integral. This means that while the overall
radioactivity on Earth decreases through normal nuclear plants operation,
this does not imply that a Nevada resident will feel better in his home
after 20 years of repository operation, with trucks loaded with SNF going up
and down. Please also check as a remainder the impact of uranium ore closed
mines on indigenous populations in US - that's no funny joke and relates
directly to the impact on future generations, when things didn't exacly went
acordingly to the initial plans.
I also wonder if the study you reffered to also considers the effect of
major nuclear plants accidents that already happened (see TMI and
Chernobyl), and the risks of other accidents, leading to contamination (was
contamination taken into account in that study?) and "global"
As for the self-education among "industry professionals" (apart from the
unnecessary irony), I think that the only (difficult) task is keeping an
open mind and an intellectual attitude, and trying to see things through
other people eyes (not only "industry professionals", but also Nevada
residents). Are we first industry professionals or humans?
Otherwise, we'd really be short-sighted, wouldn't we?
Thanks for your comments. Don't misunderstand me: I am not at all against
nuclear power, or entirely against the Yucca Mountain project as long as
it's safe for Nevada and safer and better than keping the SNF at various
plants. I understand that we have to get our energy from somewhere (nuclears
being the most effective alternative for now) and that everything must come
at a price.
I am just against the attitude that nuclear plants operation has no negtive
impact locally and globally, and we should do nothing to mitigate these
effects. This is a fake shield that actually comes from the tight
regulations this industry abides by.
Also, when I mentioned sustainable, I didn't mean only economics, but the
entire human-environment dimension (personally I think it's about time to
shift from the19th century industrial attitude, and consider the two
Thanks for your input.
All the best,