Dear Radu,
Regarding your remark below: "While you may be right all the way
(100%) about the health risk and health benefits of low doses (define low!) on
health, the part with "anti-nuclear propaganda" sounds like a DoD slogan...
"
Please read the papers (linked below) to understand
what I mean by "low". Then explain why you think low doses of radiation
are harmful, and explain why we are telling people that the radiation exposures
that they are likely to receive from used fuel might
be harmful.
It appears to me that low doses are beneficial to
health. It appears to me that we are ignoring the information that
demonstrates beneficial effects. It appears to me that
we talk/write only about potential harmful effects. How would you
define the spreading of myths that nuclear technology might causes cancer
and birth defects? Is it not anti-nuclear propaganda?
Sincerely,
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 8:52
AM
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] We have to stop
spreading anti-nuclear propaganda Re: nuclear solution ("Clean air is the
issue, not global warming")
Jerry,
You wrote:
"I regard, as anti-nuclear
propaganda any discussion or release of
information about potential adverse
health effects (i.e., cancer and
defective babies) following low doses of
radiation, without any mention of
far greater beneficial health
effects."
While you may be right all the way (100%) about the health
risk and health
benefits of low doses (define low!) on health, the part
with "anti-nuclear
propaganda" sounds like a DoD slogan... Or since you're
so inclusive ("any
discussion"), we may think of other voices in the
past...What's next:
bombing the people making "anti-nuclear
propaganda"?
Why are you afraid of media? Why are you afraid of what
people think and
discuss? Why do you think science is able to comfort
everyone? How much is
science in a nuclear reactor and how much is safety
margin to cover
uncertainties?
I am designing this stuff, and
believe me, this business has enough
"engineering judgment" besides
"science", and I KNOW that's the way it is
for very good and unavoidable
reasons. While this is given due to the very
complex problem at hand and
the huge costs associated with new knowledge
increments, don't fancy that
we're the perfect scientists and the rest dumb
laymen are not supposed to
interfere. Don't forget that you're working to
supply them with energy, so
it's within their rights to think whatever they
want - from a
non-scientific perspective as well: religious, artistic, or
whatever
cultural perspective they take. Science is not the only formalism
the
humanity have produced.
Come on people, get of the scientific boxes,
and look through other people
eyes and other disciplinary perspectives!...
Aside from this, it's more like propaganda what you say:
"There is
no problem with the used fuel. How naive can we be?
Future
generations will ridicule our primitive ideas about the "problem of
used
fuel". We created "the problem"." The fact that we had to find
the Yucca
Mountain shows that we already had a problem with spent nuclear
fuel. But
you're right that we've created the problem.
"It just
creates or perpetuates negative images in people's mind about all
nuclear
technologies."... so we're trying to get a Brave New World, aren't
we,
trying to control the negative images in people's mind?
Jerry, I just
hope your message was a passing outburst of anger, and not a
permanent
attitude. Otherwise, although your input to science may be
valuable, I wish
there are not too many people thinking like
you.
Regards,
Radu
> ----------
> From: Jerry
Cuttler[SMTP:jerrycuttler@rogers.com]
> Reply To: Jerry Cuttler
>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:57 PM
> To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail)
>
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] We have to stop spreading anti-nuclear
>
propaganda Re: nuclear solution ("Clean air is the issue, not global
>
warming")
>
> Radu, Franta, et al
>
> There is
no problem with the used fuel. How naive can we be? Future
>
generations will ridicule our primitive ideas about the "problem of
used
> fuel". We created "the problem".
>
> I
regard, as anti-nuclear propaganda, any discussion or release of
>
information about potential adverse health effects (i.e., cancer and
>
defective babies) following low doses of radiation, without any mention
of
> far greater beneficial health effects.
>
> It just creates or perpetuates negative images in people's mind about
all
> nuclear technologies.
>
> It just goes on and
on. We insist on ignoring the large amount of
> evidence that
indicates beneficial health effects.
>
> By this
definition, I believe we are spreading anti-nuclear propaganda,
> and
the media just quote what we are saying.
>
> To solve the
problem, we have to stop spreading anti-nuclear propaganda.
>
> Who will be the second person to stop doing it?
>
> Jerry
>
> ----- Original Message
-----
> From: Franta, Jaroslav
> To: multiple (E-mail)
>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:34 AM
> Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Re:
nuclear solution (was "Clean air is the
> issue, not global
warming")
>
>
> Hello Radu,
>
> You wrote :
>
> <BEGIN QUOTE>
> As for the nuclear industry as
the part of the solution, I think that it
> can be indeed a solution as
long as it is not generating other long-term
> problems, such as spent
nuclear fuel storage. Sticking the spent fuel in
> the depth of a
mountain after transporting it 3,000 miles through half of
> US is just
a temporary "long-term solution", and it will actually be a
>
permament
>
> problem for the Nevada state (again a conservation
law).
>
> I think the engineering education and practice should
start be geared
> towards sustainable solutions, i.e. solutions that
will be contained
> within themseves and will not generate headaches for
future generations.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Comment :
>
> I think that the "sustainability" - or not - of the spent
nuclear fuel
> "long-term problem" depends on what is meant by "long
term," or how many
> future generations you wish to count. Using phrases
like "permanent
> problem for the Nevada state" implies a VERY long term
indeed ! But
> that's OK, because if we look at the overall
picture -- i.e. the entire
> nuclear fuel cycle and its impact over very
long ("permanent") time, then
> the so-called "problem" inevitably
becomes a "solution."
>
> As I said in a reply to Tom Adams
on April 02, 2002, in the long-run,
> nuclear power reduces the
amount of radioactivity in the environment (if
> that's what one is
worried about) by converting long-lived natural
> uranium, to
short-lived fission products. 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. (I might add that in the case of storing
unreprocessed SNF -
> containing long-lived trans-uranics like
plutonium, in addition to fission
> products - the situation is
somewhat, but not totally different, since
> even these man-made
substances have half-lives many tens of thousands
> times shorter than
uranium.....)
>
> Why does this fact keep getting overlooked,
even by industry professionals
> ? There is obviously a need for
continued self-education !
>
> Regards,
>
> Jaro
>
>
>
|