To: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Answers to your letters supporting nuclear power -- their goofy math, inaccurate statements, and unchecked references
In-Reply-To: <20010712054806.59199.qmail@web9105.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.20010711141010.009fb180@mail.adnc.com>
To: Tim Steadham
From: Russell Hoffman
Date: July 12-14, 2001
Re: Answers to your letters supporting nuclear power -- their goofy math, inaccurate statements, and unchecked references
Dear Sir,
This letter took some time but I think it answers every major new point you bring up. Yet the crux of the debate, that is, what you started it on, has taken an interesting turn. When I asked for your sources, you cited four references. But it appears that what you have actually done is presented one reference, which uses as a basis, at least three other items, which are what you used as the other sources you were supposedly citing! The values taken, the wording -- it's all just the clips used in the first source.
That would get you kicked out of most Ivy-League schools, I think, and get you an "F" on any paper in any school where the teacher caught you pulling such shenanigans.
And the first source isn't a scientific study which helps one actually determine how much plutonium it takes to kill someone. Instead it is actually just a "flight of fancy" mathematical thumbnail diabolical experimental calculation similar to your own. It is a calculation based on an assumption that a certain amount is exactly what it takes to cause death. I want you to find me an original source. Dr. Franz von Hipple, whom you quote, is actually being quoted from the same source as the ICRP and BEIR quotes you took, namely, the first source, the Current Science article from May 25th, 2001, isn't he? And furthermore, his research is full of extrapolation, it's not epidemiological or actual. It's feeding a lot of Pu to Beagles over a short period of time and seeing how many die. That's not the kind of actual research which will determine if Dr. Caldicott's value is correct, or Dr. John W. Gofman's value (which is 400,000,000, as you can read below), or some other number, maybe even yours (but whose, exactly, that number is, we still don't know because you can't seem to tell us who that person is).
If it's possible for someone's credentials to be better than Dr. Caldicott's, which are in fact admirably sufficient to believe her postulate is a far more educated guess than yours, I suppose it's Dr. Gofman's:
Dr. Gofman is a nuclear physicist and health physicist, Professor Emeritus of Medical Physics at the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Gofman is a co-discoverer of Uranium 232, Pa 232, U 233, and Pa 233, and of slow and fast neutron fissionability of U 233, co-inventor of the uranyl acetate and columbium oxide processes for plutonium separation. He was also the first to isolate plutonium in working quantities (for the Manhattan Project during WWII). Dr. Gofman has taught and/or done research in radiochemistry, macromolecules, lipoproteins, coronary heart disease, arteriosclerosis, trace element determination and x-ray spectroscopy, and was the first Director of Biomedical Research at the Lawrence Livermore Radiation Laboratory (1963), where he conducted extensive studies on cancer, chromosomes, radiation and human health.
Can you find anyone on your side I can talk to whose credentials are half what Dr. Gofman's are? And Gofman, who in his 90's now, still does relevant research. Can you find me someone, anyone, even someone with less stature in the nuclear industry than Dr. Gofman has (just about everyone in the industry has less stature than he) who actually is studying the effects of extremely low levels of radiation on human health? I don't mean just doing some hokey calculations based on an assumption of the dangers, but actually attempting to scientifically figure out what those dangers are, using any methodology at all? Can you find me anything? Not Dr. Franz von Hipple's high dose Beagle experiments. I want the real thing. Can you find it? If not, you have no case.
If you can, you have not. You have not even supplied a name to let me dig him up. Von Hipple's research concerns much higher doses (and dogs, and only looks at one endpoint, etc. etc.), although if you can dig up that contact I suppose I could give him a call, but first you should show me that his research is actually relevant.
All your efforts so far appear to have produced nothing concrete. Nothing a simple skeptic can hang their hat on and say, "Here is a fact that Tim Steadham has given me which proves that his estimate is accurate. A scientific study which proves what he claims". I have been given nothing like that from you yet. The plutonium dispersal article doesn't find out if the presumption is right. It simply believes the same dogma you do and then calculates for a sample release. That's just not the same thing as proving the underlying premise, Mr. Steadham, yet that is what the only reference you actually cited does.
So I ask again, several times in this letter in fact, what actual research you base your studies on? And I use respected national and international committees, doctors, etc. to denounce the ICRP and BEIR (below), in case you're wondering.
Triple brackets [[[ like this -- rdh ]]], again, are used for my comments, which sometimes span multiple paragraphs within the triple brackets. Most of your additional follow-up letters are included and answered below, others have already been answered or will be answered as time permits and depending on the integrity you show in response to this tome. I've done my part, Mr. Steadham. Do your job and answer these charges without any more hoaxes like "0 automatic SCRAMS since 1998". That and many other things you've said are absolute, total bu#@hit, as I explain in detail below.
Since I now know your work directly involves what you have been writing about here, that is, you work in the very industry you claim to have an unbiased, but well thought out, support for, remember that your integrity here will surely reflect on how people who read this will feel about you at work. If you continue to try to BS me and do not get down to the issues and prove your case, I will not be surprised if your employment is terminated for the misconceptions you have tried to instill in me, which does not reflect well on the public's opinion of the people who support nuclear power. Let me be more blunt. If what you say is true, when you say that the people in the nuclear industry are for the most part forthright and passionately honest about their work, then from what I have read from you, they will not want to work with the likes of you. And remember this is coming from someone who has talked to people in the nuclear industry many times, for many decades. For example the NRC person I spoke to today seemed to be 100% honest with me and answered every question completely without hesitation. He laughed at you -- Yes, Mr. Steadham, at you, although I did not tell him your name -- for having said there were "0 automatic reactor SCRAMS since 1998", a point you continued to present long after I had shown you that as you said it, one was going on.
So when I say you are a disgrace to your industry, I know what I'm talking about, and for me to say that about someone in an industry I feel as low about as I do yours, well, that's pretty low. You should be ashamed for what you have written, below. I have explained why. I assure you that there are good jobs for you, but I do not believe you should be allowed to work in an industry you represent to the public so poorly, which is so dangerous and needs to be so carefully regulated and managed by the public to ensure their safety. I want you OUT of the nuclear industry, Mr. Steadham, but that's not what I think will get you out. I think those in the industry will want you out as well.
There has never been a "debate" with you. You have not presented any "facts" to debate which I have not overwhelmingly corrected, either in previous emails or below. You have attacked good Doctors and American Heros with your rubbish. They won't fight back, perhaps because fighting against charlatans like you is considered beneath their station, which may be a valid concern. But perhaps it's just because they are gentler, kinder human beings than I, who have always had a rougher edge. So I choose to stand and fight you. On every issue, I have done so, and have tried to leave not the slightest doubt in your mind that I have considered each issue in its entirety.
If by the end of this entire letter, I have convinced you of nothing (not even that you should purchase a spell-checker), so be it. But do not respond until you have read it all. I deserve at least that much from you for my efforts to set you straight.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
Note:
> are lines of mine you copied into your letter to me
Plain lines are your letters to me (uncut)
[[[ triple brackets are my responses, always ending in: --rdh ]]]
Several relevant attachments included.
At 10:48 PM 7/11/01 , you wrote:
First, pardon my spelling - its late!
> Where did I or anyone else say what Dr. (not Mr.)
> Cronkite died of? His
Read the title of the newsflash you attached: it says
his death was linked to radiation.
[[[ (Mr. Steadham corrects this error of his in a later email) -- rdh ]]]
> * Nuclear power's energy is not "too cheap to
> meter", it's the most expensive.
Last year, nuclear power produced electricity at the
lowest cost of any other source.
[[[ I wonder who the source is for this statement? Probably the nuclear industry. In actuality WIND POWER today probably delivers the cheapest kilowatt per dollar invested. Wind Power is certainly close to the cheapest, along with hydro and other renewable options. That's assuming a fair accounting for ALL expenses, of course. -- rdh ]]]
This includes all
expenses.
[[[ Not a chance. It does not include the hundreds of billions of dollars which were spent to develop the technology by the government and then the technology was given away to the nuclear industry. It certainly does not include the cost of disposing of the waste, a cost which cannot yet be determined because, despite putting billions and billions of dollars into researching the matter, not one High Level Nuclear Waste Dump has ever opened, nor in all probability will one open in our lifetimes. We are leaving unknown but enormous costs for our progeny. In fact, there may never be a High Level Nuclear Waste Dump, because the problems are so intractable. Yucca Mountain is a technological failure which Nevada will NEVER, EVER allow to be built. Without a long term waste repository, there is NO WAY all the expenses to society of our current nuclear power generation have been met. -- rdh ]]]
Nobody ever said that fission would be too
cheap to meter, that was fusion. Big difference.
[[[ It's true that there is a big difference between fission and fusion, but first of all, clean fusion is purely theoretical. And second of all, you are incorrect. They were talking about the technology they planned to force down our throats (and then did force down our throats). "Too Cheap To Meter" was practically the slogan of the nuclear power industry. They were talking about the same power plants which now make expensive energy and produce thousands of tons of nuclear waste which our progeny will have to clean up somehow. I challenge you, Mr. Steadham, to show me some of these statements where it is clear they were talking about fusion and distinctly not talking not fission. The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference, 1995 edition, describes fusion reactors as having "increased safety and fewer radioactive wastes" than fission reactors. They don't say it's safe and they don't say it's clean, and they don't say it will be too cheap to meter. They do say it's theoretical and controversial. They also mention in that same paragraph, that fission reactors produce power that is "expensive". -- rdh ]]]
> * Nuclear power is prone to outages, both planned
> and unplanned.
This is a laugh because unfortunately, you are in
error.
[[[ No, I'm not. 85% uptime over the course of a year is about average for nuclear power plants. True, many of their outages are "planned", but many are not. More on this topic (reliability) appears below.-- rdh ]]]
All power plants are prone to outages.
[[[ That's why we need a mix of renewable energy sources. Hydroelectric, for example, is many times more reliable than nuclear. To compare nuclear's uptime to hydro is evasive and silly. -- rdh ]]]
Nuclear plants must shut down to refuel - but
unplanned outages are less common at nukes becuase of
the excellent maint. on equipment. But don't believe
me, look at the facts.
[[[ Yep! Look at San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station (known as SONGS because like you, they ignore the waste they produce). In February a fire causes a four-month outage, followed by, just in the past 6 weeks, a hydrazine spill (about 20 gallons), a capital loss when an 80,000 lb load was dropped 40 feet in the turbine room, the forks on their biggest forklift fell 10 feet almost surely due to maintenance problems, and their switchyard had an explosion which threw glass shards onto a public street, a railway, and a busy freeway. And I've been told by a worker at the plant that it's commonly believed there that the switchyard, maintained by SDG&E (San Diego Gas and Electric, not the plant's owners, SCE (Southern California Edison)), is poorly maintained even by SONGS' standards. "Their standards" include kevlar lifting straps that break, circuit breakers that explode (someone heard it making noise, went over and looked, walked away, and as they were walking away it exploded), and fork lifts that should have been retired or repaired. Excellent maintenance? My on-site source who works at the plant, and others who have worked at that same plant, state that maintenance has been avoided because of California Public Utilities Commission pressure to keep the plant running. In fact, Elmo E. Collins, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects, Region IV, specifically attended San Onofre's recent annual safety review hearing (which was, by the way, a whitewash) because the NRC felt that a senior staff member should be there to help assure the public that the plant is being regulated safely. He said as much at the meeting. But "the public" (that's me, especially since only two other members of the public attended the meeting, including my wife) were NOT assured. I look at facts. You are dreaming. -- rdh ]]]
Capacity factors are at their all time high.
[[[ Yes, because maintenance tasks are being deferred. -- rdh ]]]
Accoridng to data released on March 15, "Total power
generated was 753.9 billon kWh, 3.5% above the
previous record of 728.1 billion kWh set in 1999.
This represents continud growth in power production
for the nuclea rindustry that 'had produced only 577
million kWh as recently as 1990' The record year 2000
output was acheived by 103 operating reactors,
compared with 111 operating reactors as recently as
1990." Monthly capacity factors exceeded 90% during
Jan, Feb, June, July, Aug, & Dec - motnhs during which
the power industry must meet peak summer & winter
demand.
Unplanned capacity loss factor in 2000 was 1.7%
capacity loss.
[[[ 1.7% would be about 10 billion kilowatt hours of unplanned capacity loss. Actual up-time, as I stated, averages about 85% for the nuclear industry. -- rdh ]]]
Since 1998, there have been 0
unplanned automatic scrams.
[[[ Huh? That's just not true! Besides, this is from today's DAILY PLANT STATUS REPORT at the NRC web site:
"3 PERRY 1 0 07/11/01 Hot Shutdown * 1 AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAM, HIGH PRESSURE CORE SPRAY/REACTOR CORE ISOLATION COOLING SYSTEM INJECTION, AND FULL BALANCE-OF-PLANT ISOLATION FOLLOWING AN UNSPECIFIED, INTERNAL, ELECTRICAL TRANSIENT (Refer to event #38131)"
--- So much for "0 unplanned automatic scrams". See my accompanying email on this topic. -- rdh ]]]
In 1994, the number was
0.8 per 7000 hours critical and remained constant in
1996.
[[[ 1993, 1995 and 1997 must have been a bad years -- or do you mean "through" for "in" in the above sentence, in which case I'll just presume 1993 and 1997 were bad years? -- rdh ]]]
Where is the problem??? The answer is that outages
are not a valid concern. Try again.
[[[ Outages are a very valid concern. A decentralized energy solution would never lose such large portions of its output capacity from such "trivial" things as a circuit breaker explosion in the turbine room which causes a fire, which causes (through a chain of several events) a loss of lubrication to the turbine, which causes it to slow to a stop in four minutes instead of the usual 24 hours, which causes it to twist and break its bearings, and which requires a four-month repair. Sure, those things might happen in a large hydroelectric plant. They did happen, this year, at my local nuclear power station. But a large number of small renewable energy producers, producing a mix of renewable energy, will not all go out at once. That's the point -- that large complicated power units are prone to unreliability, and traditionally, nuclear power has NOT been a reliable energy source, and right now it's not reliable, and if you look at the NRC Daily Plant Status reports regularly, you'll probably never see all 103 plants operating at once -- if for no other reason that the "scheduled maintenance" is actually done around worker availability as much as waste management issues. Since the nuclear power plant doesn't pay a proper price for the waste they produce, wasting fuel isn't so much of a concern to them as it should be. Finding people fool enough to go into the containment dome is. At SONGS in April, 1997, the crane operator became "inattentive" and bent the Control Rod Assembly while trying to remove it from the reactor. Sleepy work I'm sure. Nothing serious happened so, of course, it could have been worse. But what will people like you be saying when, one of these days, it IS worse? --rdh ]]]
> * No one wants the waste. Nevada, this fall, will
> start a multi-million
> dollar media campaign to prevent Yucca Mountain, as
> if scientific grounds
> weren't enough to condemn the idea.
NIMBY and LULU rearing their ugly heads.
[[[ NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is only one of Nevada's complaints -- they don't want the waste and feel they have been home to enough nuclear terrorism from the U.S. Government. I don't know what LULU is, but it's interesting that you put your NIMBY comment right after my stating that there are valid scientific reasons to condemn Yucca Mountain. That's not NIMBY and you are being illogical and evasive. Yucca Mountain, in addition to its own technological problems, would cause a secondary problem, transporting the waste through millions of people's cities and towns (the so-called Mobile Chernobyls, which is an appropriate name for them). That's what Nevada will be reminding Americans about in the fall -- that all the nuclear waste that is supposed to end up in Yucca Mountain will have to go through population centers all over the country, and there's a danger there, from both terrorists and accidents. -- rdh ]]]
In 2000, the
volume of rad waste from each operating unit was 20
m^3.
[[[ I have not been able to check on your volume figures, but my figures are in mass, and frankly neither figure is very useful compared to the figures we should be using, which if you have please supply them: Curies. How many Curies of what does each nuclear power plant produce? After all your original discussion was not in meters cubed. I see no reason to jump to this new method of measurement for our discussion. 20,000 cubic meters sounds like a hell of a lot of rad waste to me, anyway. What portion is High Level Radioactive Waste (HLRW) and what portion is Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW), and how low is low and how high is high? -- rdh ]]]
In 1999, it was 22 and 21 in 1998. Waste
volumes are decreasing.
[[[ Not exactly, unless there are some typos in your figures again. 22 is greater than 21 and 1999 is after 1998. From this minuscule sample I'd say the waste volumes fluctuate. But anyway, the total waste volume increases by huge amounts each day. For example in the time it's taken me to compose this response, my local Nuclear Waste Generating Station, with just two operable power plants (and a third that they've already realized was not safe to operate as designed and too expensive to upgrade) produced about a ton of High Level Radioactive Waste and several tons of so-called Low Level Radioactive Waste, which is of course just HLRW with filler added (wood, plastic, steel, cloth, rubber, water, aluminum, brass, etc. etc.). The point is even if the rate of increase per power plant has declined a little (something you haven't proven), it's still way too high for this to be something society keeps doing. We want to get our electrons some cleaner way, and just about every way I've ever seen is cleaner than nuclear power. Yours is a ship of fools. -- rdh ]]]
Its still not a problem
becuase it can (and currently is) stored on-site in
dry casks at many facilities.
[[[ Dry Cask Storage, an abomination of science and logic, is not safe and there have already been accidents which should have provided a clear warning to everyone, but these accidents were ignored. (May 28th, 1996, Point Beach reactor, Wisconsin, for example, and oh what an example it is.)
I'd like to know what reasonable human being you expect to open these "dry casks" after they've been sitting around for 100 years, or even the minimum 20 years they are currently licensed for, although the NRC clearly is thinking in terms of using them for as long as a century. Your grandson?
As to the volume of rad waste, each nuclear power plant produces about 50 tons of High Level Radioactive Waste and 150 tons of so-called Low Level Radioactive waste each year. Those numbers are from literature I picked up at San Onofre last month -- their own literature. And they don't include radioactive waste which is diluted to "below regulatory concern" and then dumped into the environment. -- rdh ]]]
From what I've seen, the scientific data supports
Yucca. But that is another topic which I am not well
versed on so I will defer that argument later.
[[[ But your industry has been deferring a fair look at the waste problems for more than 40 years! What "scientific data" have you seen on Yucca Mountain? You say you've seen some. I would like to know what. -- rdh ]]]
> * No one has any idea of what to do with the waste
> although hundreds of
> ideas have been considered and billions and billions
> of dollars have been
> spent.
> * Whatever we eventually do with the waste will cost
> a lot more than
> expected or promised.
Its funny that you are sure that you dont know what
will be done with the waste but are sure that no
matter what it is, you know how much it will cost.
[[[ Oh, crap! Yes, I know it will be EXPENSIVE. It's already expensive. Even the research that has already been done has been expensive, and this research has eliminated hundreds of "cheap" solutions the industry had faithfully assumed would work. Even expensive solutions like rocketing the waste into space had to be eliminated as well. There are no cheap solutions to the nuclear waste, but I don't know what it will ultimately cost. I do know that all the billions that it has cost so far have come almost entirely from the taxpayer, not the nuclear industry. The utilities that are producing the waste aren't paying anything like what the costs are sure to be, even if we don't know those costs exactly. We know they will be high. That much we know, Mr. Steadham. -- rdh ]]]
Sounds like fuzzy logic.
[[[ It sounds like you can't follow a train of thought very long without getting derailed. Anyway, I assume you are using the term "fuzzy logic" in a colloquial sense, not as a programming term. I've written plenty of software that performs what we in the software industry call "fuzzy logic" and it's actually quite logical. Personally I abhor the term, because people like you either misuse it or mean something completely different from what it means to a programmer. -- rdh ]]]
In any event, there are
many, many methods proposed from bituminous to glass
form. Even if we don't do that, dry cask storage at
ISFSI's is currently being used and is just fine.
[[[ Dry Cask Storage is not "just fine", glassification doesn't work, and neither has anything else anyone has come up with. What you are writing here is pure industry propaganda without any scientific basis in fact to back it up. There may be "many, many methods proposed", but none of them are workable and few are even close. --rdh ]]]
> * Nuclear proliferation is a constant threat (see
> related article, below).
Sorry, don't have time to read it (its late).
[[[ You have time to KILL, but no time to understand your crimes. It appears you are both lazy and inconsiderate. -- rdh ]]]
Nobody
will steal the spent fuel because it is not in a form
that can be used to make a bomb. Regardless, there
are procedures in place to deter and prevent this. We
don't live in Pakistan.
[[[ The spent fuel does not need to be made into a bomb to be used as a terrorist tool. -- rdh ]]]
> * Nuclear regulatory agencies are heavily lopsided
> towards "big,
> centralized government" which is the antithesis of
> what Americans usually
> prefer.
I don't understand. We have a central group to
regulate and protect the public and somehow that's
bad?
[[[ Local control is good. Government should be as small and as local as possible. That is a basic tenant of democracy. There are several others, like a right to clean air, food, land and water, and the right to an environment which is as free from radiation as possible. -- rdh ]]]
Since more people voted for Al Bore, I would say
that most Americans want bigger govt. In any event, I
don't see how groups like the NRC, DOT, EPA, and USPS
(yes, even the post office) are making bigger
government. If anything, they are protecting the
public and are not intruding in on people's lives.
The intrusion into people's lives is what people refer
to "bigger govt." This point makes no logical sense o
me.
[[[ In 1962 California ceded virtually all regulatory authority over nuclear power plants to the AEC (now the DOE and NRC, which both grew out of the AEC). Thus, nuclear power plants are regulated by the NRC. Not even OSHA has jurisdiction at the power plants, let alone Cal-OSHA or any other state regulatory body. This is very unusual. OSHA, for example, regulates all other private industry, even private contractors on military bases or on Indian reservations (except all-Native American contractors working on Indian reservations). You are trying to tell me that this unusual situation for nuclear power plants is what people want? To give away local control to a corrupt and biased, pro-nuclear organization that refuses to consider, let alone invest, in small-scale renewable energy solutions? I have attended public hearings, in which the commissioners of the state board (in this case the California Coastal Commission) LAMENTED the fact that they did not have the regulatory authority to address the safety issues concerning the proposal that was before them -- which was Dry Cask Storage, and which authority they did in fact have, since the regulation that ceded authority to the federal government also stated that if the system was not working to protect the health and safety of the public (which it is not), it would be terminated. I'm for giving control of energy decisions back to the state and local governments, because the federal government is supporting the wrong energy solutions and doing so poorly. -- rdh ]]]
> * There is no known minimum dose which cannot cause
> the full spectrum of
> health effects.
Watch it now - this work is still going on. There is
abundant evidence that the capacity of irradiated
cells to repair DNA damage acts to reduce cancer risk.
[[[ Yes, but that only might explain why we don't ALL get cancer from every particle of plutonium we ingest or inhale. You subtract for this multiple times in your calculations. I stand by my statement that there is no known minimum dose, and that at all dose levels the nature of the effects are the same set of horrendous health problems. That's why the allowable dose has been lowered a number of times from what they originally thought would be safe. They are not nearly low enough. Here is a letter from Dr. Gofman concerning plutonium hazards:
----- LETTER FROM DR. JOHN W. GOFMAN (sent to HANS KAROW): -----
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720
May 11, 1999
LETTER OF CONCERN.
To Whom It May Concern:
During 1942, I led the "Plutonium Group" at the University of California, Berkeley, which managed to isolate the first milligram of plutonium from irradiated uranium. (Plutonium-239 had previously been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and Edwin McMillan.) During subsequent decades, I have studied the biological effects of ionizing radiation --- including the alpha particles emitted by the decay of plutonium.
By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell's genetic molecules. My own work showed this in 1990 for xrays, gamma rays, and beta particles (Gofman 1990: "Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure". For alpha particles, the logic of no safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997, "Mutagenic Effects of a Single and an Exact Number of Alpha Particles in Mammalian Cells").
It follows from such evidence that citizens worldwide have a strong biological basis for opposing activities which produce an appreciable risk of exposing humans and others to plutonium and other radioactive pollution at any level. The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various natural sources --- which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions --- is no reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique potency. Mutation is the basis not only for inherited afflictions, but also for cancer.
Very truly yours,
(signed)
John W. Gofman, M. D., Ph D
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology
----- END OF LETTER -----
-- rdh ]]]
Some have used this evidence to argue that the small
amount of damage at low doses would be compensated by
complete cellular repair. According to these
proposals, it is only at high doses where cellular
repair capaicty is saturated and cancer may occur.
[[[ There is no "evidence" of "complete cellular repair" (cite these references you claim exist -- and I don't mean references to people who believe it. I mean references to people who have studied it and have the proof themselves). The very idea is pretty preposterous, but aside from that, plutonium in the body does "saturate" the local area with extremely high dose rates. That's the problem with internal radiation sources -- the cells nearest them probably will simply die, but the ones a little further away -- thousandths of a millimeter -- will be irradiated at HIGH dose levels, and sometimes they become cancerous. Whether some amount of repair also goes on is already accounted for by the fact that we don't all get cancer, and thus, by the statistical calculations which account for that fact. Again, Mr. Steadham is twice (at least twice) accounting for the fact that not everyone who receives a so-called low dose of radiation dies. -- rdh ]]]
The proponents of this theory offer data showing that
the ordinary, routine damage arising in DNA is very
much greater than that induced by a low dose or
radiation, even up to 20 REM.
[[[ So now 20 REM is safe, too? Please cite this reference. -- rdh ]]]
There are other data, however, that reveal a critical
flaw in this argument. This latter data show clearly
that routine DNA damage is chemically simple, whereas
DNA damage caused by radiation can take the form of
complex breaks.
[[[ Please cite this reference as well. -- rdh ]]]
In accordance with these
observations, dose-response relationships for gene and
chromosonal mutations have been shown to be
approximately linear DOWN TO DOSES OF AROUND 3 REM.
[[[ This is way, way above the doses we have been trying to discuss here and linear isn't zero. -- rdh ]]]
Another related argument used by those who oppose the
LNT are indications of an "adaptive response" to
raiation, whereby cells of animals given small doses
are made mroe resistant to later, larger doses.
[[[ Please cite this reference. And please stop using obscure initials that you haven't expanded. What's LNT? Linear something Threshold? What's LULU? -- rdh ]]]
The
proponents of this theory argue that low-dose
radiation therepy could be used to STIMULATE the human
immune system for CONTROL of cancer.
[[[ Ah, yes, the infamous Hormesis theory! What a crock that is! The idea that anyone would think that random genetic mutation is good for you is impossible for me to comprehend, and certainly there is no scientific evidence which proves it to be true. It is so illogical as to be utterly laughable. -- rdh ]]]
However, this
response DOES vary greatly from individual to
individual and is not as reproducible as was
originally hoped for.
I beleive the LNT is wrong...but lets just wait and
see what ALL of the research shows.
[[[ We don't have time to wait, Mr. Steadham. Every day we wait for you to get all the zeros figured out, and dot all the i's and cross all the t's, another 25 thousand pounds (approximately) of High Level Radioactive Waste and 100,000 pounds (at least) of Low Level Radioactive Waste are being produced by commercial nuclear power plants in America alone. Waiting is not an option. We've waited half a century to solve the waste problem and no solution is around any corner -- certainly not the southern corner of Nevada. No solution means waiting just makes the problem bigger. No, Mr. Steadham, we can't just wait. Your inability to think this out thoroughly is obvious. If this was all just theoretical, we could wait to learn more exactly just how much damage radiation does. But there are plenty of studies which show that it's far, far worse that the ICRP believes, far, far worse than the nuclear industry believes, far, far worse than you believe, and far, far worse than the NRC believes (Gofman cites some of these studies, above). This controversy rages not just among you and me, but, more importantly, among learned scientists (whom you denounce and repeatedly call "Mr." instead of "Dr.") and Nuclear Industry spokespersons, and is played out in the Media and in Government. So how about, let's wait until we can be sure NO significant damage will be caused before we dump nuclear poisons into the environment? That would be the logical thing to do. We have alternative sources of energy. Maybe you're right -- but I doubt it -- that they are a little more expensive the nuclear appears to be at this time when you don't properly account for the waste or the costs of an accident (i.e., a "worst case scenario" with a meltdown, explosion in the Spent Fuel Pool, and the Dry Casks at the station also being breached. That would be a "Worst Case Scenario", I think). Not risking such horror makes sense. Choosing safe alternatives would be in keeping with what we have learned from history (that lots of thing's we thought were harmless proved to be very harmful -- DDT's a good example, but even its dangers pale when compared to a worst case nuclear scenario). Let's follow basic tenants such as the Precautionary Principal. Let's not let Nuclear Madness affect our balanced decision-making ability. We've experimented with Nuclear and it's obviously a failure. Let's move on. -- rdh ]]]
> * There is no cost-effective way to "put the Genie
> back in the bottle";
> radioactive particles in the environment cannot be
> easily cleaned up. An
> accidental release renders areas uninhabitable for
> eons.
Ever hear of a place called Hiroshima? Even with
highly sophisticated scintillation equipment,
radiation levels are vitually undetectable. This
includes all forms of radiation from alpha to neutron.
How long ago did the bomb explode? Has it been eons??
[[[ The radiation from Hiroshima has drifted around the world and is in everyone's life. The effects are of course unmeasurable, but then, there are lots of things we can't directly measure which we know exist. Only children think they can simply hide under the bed, or sweep the dirt under the carpet, or pee in the pool. Only someone in utter denial of radiation's potential for the full spectrum of health effects down to the minutest particle would think Hiroshima's nuclear payload is not still killing someone somewhere on this planet and will not go on doing so for eons. -- rdh ]]]
> * There is no cure for cancer.
Yet but watching the news with the new cancer pill
(forget its name) are very exciting times.
[[[ Yeah right. Don't patronize me. A new "cancer pill" that will cure all the thousands of types of cancer? Yeah right. And what are its side effects? And how many people has it been tested on? And how many different cancers will it cure? I remember the first time I heard there was a cure for the common cold on the horizon too. From what I've seen of your resume, I'd guess you hadn't even been born the first time I heard a cure for cancer might be right around the corner -- or a cure for the common cold. -- rdh ]]]
> * Children are affected at about 10 times the rate
> of adults but
> regulations don't reflect this fact because it
> wasn't discovered right away
> and we still live (and die) under old regulations.
Regulations require that radiation releases from
nuclear plants be below normal background radiation
levels.
[[[ What you just wrote makes no sense. All releases increase the total amount of radiation in the environment, thus increasing "background radiation levels". Do you mean they can release the same amount as "background radiation levels"? That would mean doubling "background radiation levels" as soon as the releases started, locally. Then the "background radiation level" would be higher, and you could double it again. So where does it end? With the last man standing? (Before he doubles over in pain from the cancer your radiation produces.)-- rdh ]]]
If background is not too high, then certainly
neither is the radiation from nuke plants.
[[[ Background radiation levels are "too high", if by that you mean that background radiation causes millions of cancers around the world, which it undoubtedly does. But again, as I mentioned before, you do not differentiate between "natural" background radiation and "manmade" background radiation, the latter being entirely from particles which can be ingested or inhaled or bioaccumulated, and also, the latter being an ever-increasing number. And I notice you say nothing about the fact that the regulations for releases were set using healthy adult males as the subjects, not infants, fetuses, or pregnant women. -- rdh ]]]
Besides,
coal plants give off more radiation than nukes.
[[[ When they are operating as designed, coal plants give off more radiation than nuclear power plants do when THEY are operating as designed. I'll grant you that. -- rdh ]]]
> * Plutonium may be fatal in doses of micrograms,
> certainly it takes less
> than a milligram.
>
> In our ongoing discussion, I think you should be
> working up a number which,
> in your opinion, would be a sufficient amount of
> plutonium to kill everyone
> on Earth, if systematically and evenly distributed
> to everyone in some
> hypothetical and diabolical experiment. After all,
> you've said that one
> pound of weapons-grade Pu would not be enough, and
> your figure of less than
> twelve dead indicates to me that you think we would
> need 250,000 tons of
> plutonium, which is pretty ridiculous. So where
> does your opinion actually
> sit? What is the number of pounds you would accept
> as sufficient to do the
> job? 10 pounds? 100 pounds? 10,000 pounds?
O.K., my gut feeling aside on what I feel is the most
prudent way of looking at it and using currently
acceptable ICRP data and worse-case exposure, it is
about 4200 pounds. But this worse case incident will
never happen and I don't have the resources to analyze
each city in the world, population densities, wind
speeds, and fish migration to give you a worked-up
number. My gut feeling is that 1 pound of Pu would
probably not cause more than about a dozen or so
ADDITIONAL cancer deaths in the entire world.
[[[ Additional? What exactly do you mean by that? Because you know, Mr. Steadham, it's not just whether someone gets cancer or not that matters. It's WHEN. Do you understand that? You are hiding millions of earlier cancer deaths by saying those people would have died of cancer anyway. But WHEN? Either you don't understand the importance of time in this equation, or you are purposefully trying to hide your pet industry's cancer deaths in a sea of other cancer deaths. -- rdh ]]]
But gut
feelings are not relevant - only numbers arrived at by
some accepted process. As an engineer, I'd have to go
with my 4200 pound MINIMUM of standard weapons-grade
material as expalined in my calculation (the first pdf
file available for download on the page).
> I mean, you've rejected Dr. Caldicott's value, but
> replaced it only with an
> absurd calculation that produces a fantasy. What
> number would you
> substitute for Dr. Caldicott's? And what (more
> specifically WHO) do you
> base your figure on? Name the scientists you
> follow. I want to interview
> them.
Current Science, Vol. 80, No. 10, 25 May 2001, page
1275. Title: "Plutonium dispersal and health hazards
from nuclear weapons accidents."
[[[ A quick look shows this article is "meta-research", not original research, and thus it does not aid you in proving your point. Its calculations are based on the same erroneous studies as the ICRP, BEIR, and von Hipple values you cite below. Not only that, but your other three citations are in fact -- as can be seen from looking at the first citation -- not actually citations at all! Instead, they appear precisely as you show them in the first citation! So you have not actually looked at them, have you? I asked you to name the scientists you follow. I again challenge you to do so, and properly this time. -- rdh ]]]
ICRP: 500 fatal cancers and 100 non-fatal per 10^4
person-Sv. This is 2.85 cancer deaths/mg.
[[[ Aside from the fact that you clearly got this from the first citation, it is ridiculous anyway. This type of stuff is what got society into the problem to begin with, with a bunch of people arguing this nonsense when the fundamental questions -- like, shouldn't we just switch to renewables and forget the whole thing -- go unanswered. But I digress into reality. "These are the folks [The International Committee on Radiological Protection] that do not consider direct experience with Chernobyl or Hiroshima survivors as relevant" according to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, The Session on Chernobyl: Environmental Heath and Human Rights Implications, Vienna Austria, 12 -15 April, 1996, Permanent People's Tribunal of the International Medical Commission on Chernobyl. The Tribunal report stated, "Because of the nuclear secrecy, this association was established as, and has continued to be, self-appointed and self-perpetuating in membership. It has always claimed to assess both the hazards and the benefits of radiation use, making what is believed to be rational trade-offs of risks for benefits. Membership in ICRP has consisted of users of radiation, about 50% physicists, and 15% radiologists, with medical administrators making up about 25% and 10% from a scattering of other disciplines. The result of ICRP deliberations and recommendations have been radiation protection standards used in most countries for occupational and public health exposures to radiation which they found acceptable to accommodate the new technology (and atmospheric weapons testing). Their recommendations were widely accepted by national regulatory bodies, and generally implemented internationally. The findings of the U. S. investigations of the atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the U.K. studies of patients who received high therapeutic doses of radiation for a spinal disease, have been the foundational studies which justified ICRP recommendations. All other radiation research must "harmonize" with these studies in order to be admitted into the regulatory base. Both of these examples involve high doses of radiation delivered in a short time. Limited biological endpoints were studied, primarily fatal cancers, and extrapolation of these findings to exposures to low doses extended over long periods of time such as would be experienced by workers and the public was attempted. Expertise in public or occupational health has not been represented on the main committee of ICRP, which makes all decisions. Direct medical experience with the atomic bomb victims, Chernobyl, or other radiation victims is not recognized as relevant by the ICRP." (From Item IV: Cover-up by the International Community.)
This report can be obtained from:
International Medical Commission on Chernobyl
care of:
IICPH
International Institute for Concern for Public Health
710-264 Queens Quay West
Toronto, ON Canada M5J 1B5
fax: (1-416-260-2404)
(When requesting a copy, folks should include $5 or $10. It's about 25 pages.)
"If all members of ICRP and NCRP resigned who worked for the nuclear industry or received research funding from it, both would be ghost organizations with very few if any members."
-- The late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, known as the "father of Health Physics", former director of health physics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in sworn testimony to the Department of Energy, 1989 (printed in 1990).
With the help of a friend, the following section (to the ***** asterisks ***** ) is based on, and the quotes are from: The Woman Who Knew Too Much: Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation, Gayle Greene (forward by....guess who, Mr. Steadham?...Dr. Helen Caldicott), pages 122- 125, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1999. Some of the quotes within this section are from interviews done specifically for the book. Others reference other primary sources such as publications in scientific journals or interviews published elsewhere. The author of "the Woman Who Knew Too Much" has meticulously footnoted these sources.
"We had, all of us, a misconception in that we adhered universally to the so-called threshold hypothesis, meaning that if a dose was low enough, cell repair would take place as fast as the damage would accrue. In other words we believed there was a safe level of radiation. Now along comes [Dr.] Alice [Stewart] who says that "damage per unit dose" is greater at ... low levels." -- Dr. Karl Z. Morgan.
"He announced in the September 1978 issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that he thought the current radiation risk had been underestimated by a factor of ten. Since he was chairman of the International Commission on Radiation Protection, the commission that sets the standards, and since he had, as he says, "for a quarter of a century supported rapid expansion of the nuclear industry" this caused quite a stir. "When we first began to assert this, many people thought we were crazy."
Alice herself was shaken by her findings. "Not even I had thought the effects of such a small dose would be as great as this. The Oxford survey had upset the medical profession, but I now saw that these finding would upset a more formidable set of authorities. It came to me all of a sudden that what we were going to say would shock the world.""
She basically came out with studies which showed that the Hanford workers were being killed. The "Nuclear Mafia" (as I call them) picked on Dr. Stewart and anyone who agreed with her, and made fun of them, and everyone who backed her up lost their funding. Because what they began to find, which Dr. Morgan published in 1977 in Health Physics, a peer-reviewed journal he edited at the time, was devastating for the industry.
Dr. Stewart, Dr. Mancuso (University of Pittsburgh; a world-renowned epidemiologist), and Dr. George Kneale (a brilliant statistician) had enough evidence from their Hanford studies to publish the results. Dr. Stewart: "We were finding that there was a six or seven percent increased cancer effect. It wasn't much of an effect, but the shock was that there was any effect at all, since the cancers were occurring at radiation exposure levels well below the official limit of 5 Rads per year [1977]. It meant that the current standards for nuclear safety might be as much as 25 times too high."
But even a 10-fold decrease in permissible exposure levels would be a huge problem for the industry: "Were we to reduce the maximum permissible exposure by a factor of 10, I seriously doubt that many of our present nuclear power plants would find it feasible to continue in operation." -- Dr. Karl Z. Morgan.
Dr. Stewart realized it first. Her Oxford study of childhood cancers was both mind-numbing and ground-breaking in that it showed that if you irradiate pregnant woman, the consequences to their offspring are terrible. You'll have cancers and leukemias at a high rate. Because of her, when woman go in for an x-ray, they are asked if they are pregnant.
"For years and years our pre-natal study has been the only evidence that there was anything dangerous with low-dose radiation. But now at Hanford we were turning up further evidence. At Hanford we were looking at people being exposed day in and day out to doses only a fraction higher than background radiation and we were finding a cancer effect. We were finding an effect at levels comparable to those absorbed by the general public. This meant there was a serious health hazard, not only to workers in the atomic energy industry, but to the general public as well." [This was all going on in the 70's.]
***** end of excerpts from "The Woman Who Knew Too Much" *****
ICRP is the problem, Mr. Steadham. Or rather, you and your industry's blind faith in such biases sources. Logical thinking about who they are, what they are saying, and what the ramifications are, is the solution. -- rdh ]]]
BEIR: 700 lung CA deaths, 80-1100 bone CA deaths (wide
span..makes me tend to not believe it), & 300 liver CA
deaths per 10^4 person-Sv
[[[ This is just copied from the first citation as well, isn't it, Mr. Steadham? Please explain what you mean when you say "person-Sievert". It's very complicated and arbitrary. It's all guesswork, you know, because you can't measure radiation in the human body. A urine test is about the only way you can begin to measure actual exposure, or from a blood, bone, or hair sample. None of these actually measure the plutonium in someone's organs. Some of these values are averaged out over ridiculous things and they make no sense whatsoever. It's guesswork which permits pollution that creates babies with brain tumors. Becquerels, Sieverts, REM: Each one is goofy guesswork in its own way. -- rdh ]]]
Fetter and Von Hippel extrapolate from the risk of
pulmonary neoplasia to beagle dogs subjected to high
doses of Pu and obtain 12 cancer deaths/mg.
[[[ This too is just copied from the first citation, isn't it, Mr. Steadham? These are the sorts of tests they are still doing on Beagles, as if they were learning some vital new information that will help us set the exposure level "just right". Relatively high doses of plutonium are administered, and then "extrapolation" is made downward in dosages, and across both species and diseases. Why Beagles? Because they're docile. These experiments are being carried on because the nuclear industry wants to decide to the exact mREM how much radiation we can all take without getting too many of us sick (i.e., so many that we notice what is happening to us). In fact we don't need to know to that fine a degree what they are trying to ascertain. We need not torture more Beagles. Plutonium is hazardous in extremely low quantities, much lower than anything BEIR or ICRP ever admit to. Here is a real expert -- not an unnamed person in a government report or a report from some international society for the promotion of nuclear power, but a real live scientist -- Dr. John W. Gofman, respected (and feared) throughout the nuclear industry:
"My estimate is for the kind of plutonium that you get from the nuclear fuel cycle, that in nonsmokers of cigarettes, about a 400 millionth of a pound will guarantee human lung cancer, or stated another way, a pound of plutonium has enough in it, if finely divided and put into human lungs to cause 400 million human lung cancers and my estimate is that the cigarette smokers in the population, because of the damage to part of their clearance mechanism, their lungs might be 100 times more sensitive to the effects of plutonium.
"If the fuel cycle does initiate the step of reprocessing to get back this plutonium -- we have done it experimentally -- and there was a period for a while in New York were a company did do reprocessing of commercial fuel; that is closed down now -- we will be handling thousands and thousands of pounds of plutonium in the fuel cycle, and that is where the hazard comes up, because of its enormous lung cancer potential.
"That's not the only effect of plutonium. If it gets in the biosphere on the ground and into water, some of the plutonium is fairly insoluble, and not easily taken up by plants or by man through eating it. As I mentioned the hazard through inhalation is enormous, but the recent works on plutonium indicate it's even a lot more of concern by ingestion, that is eating, than was thought before because plutonium has the notorious capability of interacting to form very, very tight chemical complexes with certain molecules, organic molecules, that occur in nature, and these things can facilitate the uptake of plutonium into plants and, hence, into man. And rather recently, there has been scientific evidence that shows that all the estimates of the low hazards of any plutonium -- that has nothing to do with the very high hazard of breathing it -- that the low hazards estimated about eating it are wrong, and wrong by about 1000 times, because plutonium in the presence of for example drinking water that has been treated with chlorination, which is the case in the United States [where chlorination is] very widespread, gets converted from the +3 or +4 oxidation, or what we call valence state to +6 and the +6 state is very much more readily absorbed than the +4.
"I have worked with +4 and +6 plutonium in the laboratory myself, and I know that the behavior of the plutonium in the +6 state is very very similar to that of uranium, in fact, I developed and patented a process for separating plutonium based upon this. And so this grave error in the underestimates of a hazard from ingestion may even make the eating of plutonium as bad as breathing."
Dr. John W. Gofman, in court, 1979 (no one's eaten it or drunk it or breathed it enough to know if he's wrong since then).
Dr. Gofman isolated the first working quantities of plutonium for the Manhattan Project in the 1940's.
He is still working. I have interviewed him about half a dozen times, for a total of several hours.
See www.ratical.org . Go ahead, Mr. Steadham. See what real research even looks like! Not the bogus citations you've given me. -- rdh ]]]
When discrediting a point, it is helpful to discredit
it with the worse case possible (assuming the case is
not itself the worse-case.) If the worse case is not
possible, then neither is the proposed case. I did
that by showing that, based on currently accepted
data, 1.2 million people would develop CA as a result
of 1 pound of Pu. This is much less than the 6.2
billion people claimed by Dr. Caldicott.
[[[ Well now you know why, if you've been paying attention. You can't study Beagles at high doses, you can't study large but short-lived doses, you can't even study low doses directly because of all the confounding factors that would occur. And the organizations making the limits are biased.
"The presence of chromosome aberrations has been reported in laboratory animals following exposure to plutonium. Chromosome aberrations have also been reported in humans following exposure through open wounds, but evidence from epidemiological studies where exposure occurred by inhalation have been equivocal." -- Plutonium and Compounds: The Toxicological Profile. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Prepared for them in 1990 by a contractor. The report, according to the person who called my attention to it, "leaves a lot to be desired. I would imagine that the reason they know about the chromosomal damage capabilities of plutonium with 100% surety, is that a worker probably cut themselves and became contaminated with plutonium, and they looked later and saw the damage. However, for an epidemiological study, they don't go running around looking at entire populations, looking for chromosomal damage." And of course, they don't administer plutonium to anyone (any more) for experimental purposes. One source given in the report for that quote: Brandom, et al, Chromosome Changes In Somatic Cells of Workers With Internal Depositions of Plutonium. Printed in Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries, Volume II, STI/PUB/522. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency. 195-210.
This decision -- to use nukes to produce electrons or not -- is a health issue; a vital environmental issue that should be handled by much larger groups of people -- by everyone -- and different people from the ones who currently handle it, who come from the nuclear industry like you do. It needs to be looked at differently from the way it is now looked at, which is economic, with its ALARA ("As Low As Reasonably Achievable", which is like having no standard at all) and so on.
Nuclear Engineers such as yourself quote the ICRP like it was a source of well-reasoned truth, but in fact the ICRP isn't known for the number of medical doctors it has. They claim such and such a dose is fine -- don't worry. But they just know what they want to know and won't learn anything else. And you believe it without a single deep thought into the matter.
Science and humanity are the big losers. The nuclear industry reaps the rewards of its self-regulation. But self-regulation is no regulation.
If we have a heart attack we don't go to a mechanic. If our car is broken we don't go to the dentist. Why are engineers and those who are paid by the nuclear industry making our health decisions, and doing so on so little data? Well, they do it on so little data because the new data they could use would doom the industry. And why do we let them? I don't have any idea. -- rdh ]]]
>
> There are many differences between natural
> background radiation (such as
> radiation from the sun) and what the nuclear
> industry is adding to the
> environment, the main difference being that the vast
> majority of naturally
> occurring background radiation stays outside the
> body where it belongs. It
INCORRECT! Background radiation comes from gamam
rays, beta particles, and alpha particles.
[[[ INCORRECT: Background radiation IS gamma rays, alpha, beta particles, x-rays, etc. All "radiation" is made of one of those things, it doesn't "come from" those things. Cancer, leukemia and birth defects come from those things. -- rdh ]]]
About 27
mREM (at sea level) per year is from gamma (cosmic
X-rays and ion interactions in the atmosphere creating
x-rays.) The remaining is from the food we eat (such
as from K) and from sources like radon which we
inhale.
[[[ Radiation from the sun is neither ingested nor inhaled like your industry's radiation gift to the world is. -- rdh ]]]
I will not duplicate it here..go to the page
marked where your dose comes from.
> can still cause damage, but as I said before, skin
> and hair protects us
> from much of that potential damage. The nuclear
Skin and hair can shield you from gammas and betas and
from the alpha particles in the radon you breathe?
What skin do you have?
[[[ You are twisting what I said, as usual. Radon is a serious problem, no doubt about it. But most natural "background radiation" is something we have mechanisms to protect ourselves from, mechanisms which evolution has provided us with through billions of years of progress (progress your random mutations are undoing). These problems are cumulative, an issue you never address anywhere. That there is a radon problem (a well-accepted fact) only means adding radioactive nuclear power plant effluent will make the problem even worse. (And by the way, radon was not a significant problem for most of evolution, not until we dug it up and built homes and schools with materials that gave off a lot of it in an enclosed area.) The fact that there is a radon problem that needs to be addressed is no excuse for adding more radioactive material into the environment, quite the opposite, in fact: That we are already at a level which induces millions of cancers indicates that we should do NOTHING to increase the cancer rate in society. It's high enough already. -- rdh ]]]
> industry, on the other
> hand, produces particles of plutonium which get
> inside us and irradiate the
> local area terribly. A 1/10th of 1% increase in
No commericial nuclear power plant in the USA has ever
released Pu to the environment.
[[[ This is the "we haven't had a worst-case accident yet" claim you repeat several times in various ways. Give it time, Mr. Steadham, and we will have a worst-case accident, with an enormous plutonium release. This accident will be caused by one or more of the following: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Terrorists, equipment failures, procedural failures, asteroids (you probably don't believe in asteroids, the entire nuclear industry doesn't), airplanes crashing into the plants (don't give me the song and dance about them being able to withstand such things, it's bu!!$hit), or some other so-called unforeseen" occurrence. The longer we wait, the more likely one of these is to happen. And there is nothing you or anyone else in the nuclear industry can do about it. Your time is coming. -- rdh ]]]
Because the Pu in the
fuel is primarily the result of direct neutron
absorption, it does not have the KE that fission
products have. As a result, the fission fragments
tend to diffuse to the outer periphery of the pellet.
The U and Pu really stay put, but the fuel swells.
What this means is that the Pu is as locked up in the
fuel as the U. It was not displaced from its lattice
structure and therefore is an integral part of the
fuel. Unlike fission products that must "find a new
home" in the fuel.
I have a wonderful picture of this in one of my
textbooks, "Fundamental Aspects of Reactor Fuel
Elements" which I'll scan and email to you if you
wish. I just need to find the time to find the
picture in the book.
[[[ Yes, please do so if you can. But in any event, the plutonium can be released when the fuel elements melt down or when a Dry Cask Storage unit burns, or when something happens in a Spent Fuel Pool to cause a meltdown and/or explosion there. -- rdh ]]]
> radiation could have a
> significant impact on global health whether you have
> devised a method you
> consider satisfactory to measure it or not. If it
> increases cancer by
> 1/10th of 1%, that is millions of people. That
> matters. People should
> worry about it because, unlike natural background
> radiation, there are many
> things society can do to reduce manmade radiation
> levels, or at least stop
> them from rising so quickly and persistently, as
> they have been over the
> years, thanks to weapons testing, Chernobyl, and the
> thousands and
> thousands of "little" spills, leaks, etc. that occur
> each year throughout
> the industry, and not to mention the industry
> practice of diluting
> radioactive waste to "below regulatory concern" and
> then freely releasing
> millions of Curies of radioactive waste into our
> rivers, lakes and oceans,
> into our atmosphere, and throughout our land.
Despite the releases by nuclear plants, they remain
well within the regulatory requirement of 50
mREM/year.
[[[ ALARA -- As Low As Reasonable Achievable -- is the nuclear industry's license to murder. Your statement doesn't answer for all the crimes I've listed above! Regulatory requirements are way too lax, but besides that, it's not the operational releases I worry so much about, as the unplanned ones. And I'm not at all fond of the measuring methods used at nuclear power plants, where the few detectors they have are only used to report accumulated values, not the spot values that could indicate serious problems at the plant. Right now, with the current regulatory environment, a plant can either disable their monitors and no one would notice for months or years, or they can, at the very least, make up for a large unplanned release by filtering their planned releases so that the total for a long period -- say, three months -- remains below regulatory concern. That is an abomination of the spirit of the regulations, even if the NRC lets it happen. -- rdh ]]]
This is, as stated before, less than
normal background levels and much less than the dose
received from a businessman who flies frequently.
[[[ What have businessmen who fly frequently got to do with assaults on fetuses by the nuclear industry? -- rdh ]]]
If you want to compare it, coal plants (again) release
more radiation than nuclear plants. You obviously
aren't concerned about the rdiation from coal plants
or from airplane travel, why are you cocnerned about
the radiation from nuclear plants?
[[[ When nuclear power plants are operating properly, their releases are comparatively low, especially if you compare them to coal plants. As soon as we shut down the nukes, we'll start worrying about the myth of "clean coal". And actually, I am concerned about the radiation from airplane travel, but those decisions don't impact anybody else. If I want to worry about it I can do something about it. But the piles of waste are mounting while we debate this matter, at the rate of about 100 pounds every three minutes country-wide for High Level Radioactive Waste and many times that for so-called Low Level Radioactive Waste, which is just HLRW with filler added, like steel, plastic, cloth, rubber, water, air, etc. -- rdh ]]]
> And what I call "natural radiation" and what you
> call "background
> radiation" are two different things. I believe
> every mREM of added
> radiation is a bad thing, and your "background
> radiation" level, which
> includes all the crap being thrown into the
> environment daily, is a moving
> target.
Background radiation is the sum of all radiation from
all sources man-made or otherwise. Again, if you are
REALLY concnerned about every mREM then you need to
move to the coast, live in a wooden house, and get
away from that computer. To really minimize your
dose, you can live underground and filter the air you
breathe to remove all airborne contaminates, grow your
foods hyponically - and dont eat banannas.
[[[ I am worried about your excusing all forms of additional radiation simply because some forms are unavoidable. I am worried about your backing an energy system which can render the coast I live on uninhabitable for thousands of years in a heartbeat. I am worried about radiation from my computer, and I am worried about pollutants in the air. I try to eat organic vegetables to protect myself from pesticide poisons. Yep, we all do what we can. -- rdh ]]]
> Meanwhile, billions of people who are alive today
> will die of cancer. If
> we can reduce those deaths by 1/10th of 1% or even
> 1/100th of 1%, that
> would be a wonderful thing. We can reduce cancer
> deaths, for example by
> switching away from nuclear power and towards
> renewable energy
> solutions. As you say, you have to look at the
> risks. Since you think one
> pound of Pu would only kill 12 people if spread into
> everyone's bodies, I'm
> quite sure you haven't assessed the risks properly
> regarding nuclear issues.
Again, you are misinterpreting my statements. IF you
disurse one pound equally into each person's body,
then I agree that you will have more than 12 CAs.
[[[ How many? That's what the diabolical experiment does. It disburses one pound equally into each person's body. It's a simple enough premise to work with, yet you flip back and forth between that and reality, and you subtract for any repair that our bodies might be able to do multiple times in arriving at your conclusions. -- rdh ]]]
However, that will never happen due to winds,
currents, population densities, etc. Some will get
more, some less (as you stated before).
[[[ Now you're mixing real life with our theoretical diabolical experiment. Please stay on topic. -- rdh ]]]
Your risks from nuclear power are like 1 in a million.
[[[ That number is a guess. It has no basis in fact and is undoubtedly incredibly inaccurate. -- rdh ]]]
So, if we ban all activities with risks greater than
that then we will live very shelter lives (literally).
Please show me one realistic risk that we take every
day that is less than the risks from nuclear power
plants. If you can't then you are just a paranoid
neurotic and I can't argue logic with illogical
people.
[[[ This accusation assumes that nuclear power is as safe as you say it is, which is preposterous. Also, there's a big difference, which you completely miss, between taking personal risks and having risk foisted upon me by people like you. -- rdh ]]]
> As to "agreeing to disagree", I assume you will
> publish these "debates" at
> your web site. Since you have answered virtually
> none of my questions, I'm
> sure you will find that embarrassing, but
> nevertheless, you should consider
> it your duty since you say you encourage debates,
> and I've certainly
> offered you the opportunity to debate these issues.
> If you simply "agree
> to disagree" then you are not debating, and you have
> lost.
As I said, I beleive your views towards nuclear power
are based on neurotic, paranoid, delusional fears.
[[[ Oh, okay -- let's not mince words, Mr. Steadham. I can only presume you are resorting to this level of insult because you cannot debate the facts. Most of your letter is little more than repetitions of your superstitions. You refer to nuclear power with all kinds of glowing terms but never face reality. For example you claim that there haven't been any automatic SCRAMs in several years, when one is listed in the NRC plant status report for the very day you make this bogus claim! Check your facts, dude! And even the NRC will tell you, as they told me today (Friday) (in a conversation with a Branch Chief regarding the Monticello incident), there have been plenty of automatic SCRAMs since 1998 -- what did you do, just make that up as you went along? You're the one who is suffering from delusions, Mr. Steadham. -- rdh ]]]
Unfortuantely, no amount of logic can argue with
illogic. That is why I said we need to agree to
disagree. Its like me and you arguing about the
chance of your monitor exploding right now and killing
you. Will it happen? No. Can it happen?
Conceivably. Would you argue with someone that wanted
to ban all computer monitors becuase of the chance for
explosion? No - it would be senseless.
[[[ This is not what is happening. You have made some valid points which I have answered, and many points you've made have no basis in fact but I've answered as many of them as possible anyway. You still haven't resolved any big issues, like were are we going to put the waste? How are we going to get it there? What is your faith in Dry Cask Storage based on? Upon what scientific studies do you base your trust in Pu's safety, and which specific scientists have you yourself interviewed, who have done this particular research?
You claim Dry Cask Storage is safe, has been safely handled so far. Not true: They blew a Dry Cask unit open in the midwest a few years back.
It seems that no amount of logic has made you concede even one point, and you keep repeating things like "a properly operating nuclear power plant releases less radiation than a coal plant" which I never even disagreed with. You should probably consider going back to school to learn how to properly and honorably debate things, besides learning how to respect your opponent (let alone, how to properly find and cite references). I note that in another letter this week you say I'm not stupid: "Please understand: I am not calling YOU stupid or anything else derogatory" -- but yet in this letter, you say I'm illogical, paranoid, neurotic, and suffer from delusions. That's all pretty libelous and extremely derogatory. So you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. How can I debate someone who can't stick to one position throughout the debate? -- rdh ]]]
> I do not "agree to disagree". You are in serious
> error, human lives depend
> on us understanding these issues and you clearly
> don't, your web site is
> insulting to good scientists, your letters to me
> have been at best evasive,
> and your shutting down the discussion makes a
> mockery of your claim to be
> willing to debate the issues.
I disagree. In fact, I made a SPECIFIC point to argue
EACH point you made in this email as they were brought
up.
[[[ If you say you are willing to debate the actual issues, we have still only just begun. I'm still waiting for you to cite the sources for picking the numbers you picked. Where else could we start? Your whole house of cards is based on those numbers. I want you to provide me with the actual studies which prove those numbers are the correct numbers, not some report of calculations done with those numbers, which is all that your May 25th, 2001 Current Science article does. It's the same kind of meaningless calculations you did in the first place, signifying nothing. -- rdh ]]]
I generally don't like doing this but rather like
to digest an email as a whole and repsond to it as a
whole. By the way, I have enjoyed our discussions so
far - no hard feelings.
[[[ I'm only mad at the system, not the individuals who have found themselves part of so vast a failure on the part of society. There are so many facets on which a proper decision must be based. Your bias starts with assuming that the safest possible estimates of the dangers are always the right ones. Even though I have quoted standard, respected texts which say that those views may be absolutely wrong, in every case you have assumed the best case scenario. Well, Mr. Steadham, it is one thing to argue that nuclear power is safe. It is quite another to argue that it is necessary. Or that it is economic. Or that Dry Cask Storage is safe. Or that transportation issues are resolved, and tsunami issues, and earthquake issues, and even proliferation and regulatory issues, which you in your other letter (shown below) accuse me of completely misunderstanding. But I say it is you who at the very least misunderstands this: All those things you say would have to happen to make state and local regulation work -- well, they all have to happen for every other thing we do in society. Nearly everything is subject to standard (e.g., OSHA) regulations. There are exceptions for the military (and Representative Bob Filner, bless him, has proposed an Act, called the Military Environmental Responsibility Act, to fix that) and for agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, GSA and so forth. But as far as I know, no other technology, no matter how dangerous or exotic or complicated or important or new or untested or frightening or bizarre, has such a unique regulatory atmosphere.
That alone at least qualifies me to ask the questions you are calling me stupid for in your other letter (shown below).
Of course, let me mention, as you call my ideas stupid yet say you have no hard feelings (I would, frankly, rather you have hard feelings but think I'm right), that I don't make of habit of hating my enemies, and I've even been known to be a fan of a Nazi war hero (by the name of Franz von Werra, a pilot who did not survive the war). (My father fought the Nazis in World War Two and is well aware of my feelings about von Werra. He agrees that the system there was faulty, and not every German was crazy. Many were simply deluded into thinking that what was happening had to happen for this reason or that reason, and didn't really think it through. And of course, public debate on the issues was strictly forbidden. Thank God people like my dad DID win the war, or my simply raising these questions would probably land me in a prison cell, if not cause me a death sentence. See the comments below by "SMD".) -- rdh ]]]
Maybe one day we could have a
beer together - I'll buy.
[[[ Beer's bad for us, right? By all means, let's quaff a few pitchers! Yes, and of course please let me send you a complimentary copy of my pump tutorial (although all the pumps are on the web, the animations are not, and those that are transferred to the Internet generally don't run as smoothly, aren't as large, or don't have as many frames). Assembler language (100,000 lines of it) makes the CD version smooth. -- rdh ]]]
I look at it this way. My radiation dose from nuclear
power is less than one tenth of one percent of my
total radiation dose. Radon does much more damage
than any nuke plant does.
[[[ You keep referring to properly operating nuclear plants as the only source of radiation from the nuclear cycle. In fact, there are loses and risks of serious, large releases at all phases, from mining to processing to shipping the fuel to the plants to when it sits in the spent fuel pools (which have leaked in the past, and some have slow leaks as we speak), to the dry storage casks, and lastly, to the long-term repository, which doesn't even exist and hasn't been designed (unless that joke Yucca Mountain is accepted.) All you ever think about is what a properly operating nuclear power plant releases. Never mind the rest, according to you. Never mind Chernobyl -- it wasn't an American plant. Never mind Three Mile Island -- its release wasn't "significant", and never mind that the American public was lied to for 20 years about just how bad that accident really was and how close we really came to a full-fledged China Syndrome. Never mind all that. Just look at the operational nuclear power plant and pretend nothing can ever, ever go wrong. Even the NRC isn't so dumb -- at least, when asked by Congressman Markey in 1985, for example, they expressed the opinion that accidents (meltdowns) are not exactly unlikely -- their prediction -- that is, NRC's prediction as given to Congressman Markey -- was a 45% chance in the next 20 years. (So far we've been lucky, I guess.) Well, that's fine for them since they downplay the dangers of an accident, just like you do, with your 4,200 lbs of plutonium being needed to do what Dr. Caldicott says would take a pound to do -- kill us all if administered systematically (Dr. Gofman would say about 15 lbs would do it). The 45% chance of a major meltdown didn't worry the NRC sufficiently, I'll admit, but at least unlike you they aren't pretending there will never be an accident. Have you ever heard of the CRAC-2 report?
(You can find both the Markey/NRC testimony, and a copy of the CRAC-2 report, at the Mother's Alert web site: www.mothersalert.org .) -- rdh ]]]
I see your point about shutting down nuke plants
becuase they contribute to radiation exposure.
however, I do not agree that shutting them down is
logical because there are other things in our lives
that expose us to MORE radiation than we get from
nuclear. Since we are not willing to cut out those
other things, why are we so quick to do it with
nuclear?
[[[ Because nuclear power plants have a potential to release vast quantities of radioactive elements into the environment. Hydro can't do that. Solar power, wind power, wave power, tide power, geothermal power -- none of these have that kind of potential for disaster and their electrons are just as good as the ones we get from nukes. Furthermore, radiation is cumulative. We should strive to eliminate ALL sources, but nuclear power is a big source (making the payoff for eliminating it large) and it's easily replaceable. -- rdh ]]]
I would have more respect for you if you lived your
life to minimize all radiation dose from all sources
to the absolute minimum that you could possibly attain
AND you reduce all of your risks of injury and death
to that even coming close to nuclear. I doubt you do,
however and I doubt that any of the anti-nuke activits
live their lives like that. To those people (which I
am sure they exist) I say "YOU have a point because
you obviously beleive it - but you are still
paranoid."
[[[ I wear sunscreen. Isn't that good enough? I do what I can on a personal basis to reduce my risk. The nuclear industry, however, FORCES an increased risk on everyone on the planet and for what? For the benefit only of those who get their electrons the instant they make them. No one else benefits. A renewable energy-based society, however, does not force grave risk on anyone, and those who benefit are usually very near the energy sources that bother them for even existing. -- rdh ]]]
My point is clear.
[[[ Uh, no. Not exactly. -- rdh ]]]
Fossil plants pollute the
environment by dumping out over 10^5 tons of pollution
per 1100 MW(e) of generation. Nuclear produces none.
Coal plants release more radiation than nuke plants to
the environment. Coal plants are dirty.
[[[ I never, ever, ever recommended these other energy sources. I'm for renewables, and I believe the pump inventions I've seen in the last 8 years or so, since I started working on a pump tutorial, have the capability to save enough energy, if widely adopted by industry, as we create from nuclear power.
So if we made that switch, we could switch off the nukes. Then maybe we can also employ the various renewable options, which will grow tremendously as soon as micropayments are permitted as describe below (in my letter to the North County (CA) Times), and turn off some of the coal, oil, and other fossil fuel plants. And yes, I am absolutely positive that this isn't the dreams of science fiction. A little change in the regulatory climate here and there, and in six months the whole country would be building towards an renewable energy future.
One Chernobyl-style accident here would ruin any chance that society will permit more nuclear power plants, and might well cause us to shut down those that are still operating. I know, I know, you'll say we can't have a Chernobyl here because our nuclear power plants have these things called containment domes, but I've written answers to that tired argument before (and will dig them up if you need me too). But no matter: Let's just say a 747 crashed into a hundred Dry Storage Casks, causing everyone to have to evacuate the area quickly and permanently (and causing thousands of deaths). At our local plant it would be pretty easy for the control room for the reactors to be wiped out in the same crash since its very close to where the Dry Casks will be stored. So obviously there would be a meltdown there too, even assuming the containment dome were not hurt by the 747 crash. And the Spent Fuel Pool -- if stuff didn't fall in it and break open some fuel pellets, all the same no one would be able to stop that from melting down pretty quickly either, since there would surely be no power for the pumps, and you couldn't go near the place no matter what kind of radiation protection suit you think the NRC owns. And Monticello's primary containment -- it was discovered 30 years after the plant was started -- turns out, probably, to have been inoperable the entire time because four bolts used for shipping were not removed as they were supposed to be. That is a very serious safety lapse -- millions or even billions of dollars worth of installed safety equipment appears to have actually been unusable for 30 years.
Now, show me any way a comparable catastrophe could happen at a coal-fired plant, an oil-fired plant, or at any renewable energy plant? There is one thing missing -- the hundreds of tons of highly radioactive waste! That's the difference. That's the problem. Nuclear power is a gamble. Maybe what I described won't happen, but that's just one of thousands of serious accident scenarios each plant faces. Using nuclear power is gambling -- gambling with the devil. In Vegas all you can lose is your shirt -- your life if you gamble at the wrong joints and don't make good your debts, I hear, but that's extreme and unusual and the Feds, State, County and Local enforcement agencies work together to do everything they can to prevent such things. Usually all you can lose is your money, if you lose a gamble in Vegas. But with nuclear power, you gamble with other people's lives when you support nuclear power, since YOU KNOW that 99.999% of the accidents won't kill YOU, no matter who they might kill. Even if it takes 4,200 pounds of weapons-grade Pu to kill everyone, and not one pound as Dr. Caldicott suggests is more accurate, there are still 1000 other reasons to reject nuclear power over clean energy options. -- rdh ]]]
it has been
proven that the release of radiation from nuclear
plants AND its waste is well within NORMAL background
levels and so much less than our total radiation dose.
[[[AND it's waste? You mean what by that? That we could go ahead and dump the waste from all 103 nuclear power plants into the environment and nothing would happen? Cancer rates would not increase? What do you mean by such absurd language? -- rdh ]]]
I like to equate it to a dirty windshield. Some
windshields are so dirty that you cannot see through
them some and it presents a safety hazard. If you
clean 0.1% of the windshield, what have you really
done? Have you REALLY made it easier to see?
Technically yes. Realistically no. All of those dirt
particles add up to make for an unsafe windshield so
theoreticaly, if you take one particle off, you
reduced your chances of getting into an accident. Is
this technically correct - absolutely it is...but its
not practically or realistically accurate becuase you
need to wipe off MORE than that small dirt particle.
[[[ I don't see the analogy. The nuclear industry has no unique purpose. It's purpose -- gathering electrons as one person put it whom I heard speak recently, and that sounds pretty accurate to me -- could be done other ways. Renewable energy systems need, for example, micropayments to happen, because many of them come from small sources. I explain this in a letter the North County Times, shown below, so there's no need to repeat it here.
Another point, however, is to note that you bounce from one excuse to another to explain away the dangers of radiation AND the need for nuclear power. I agree the world needs energy. But from where? Not from nuclear power, that's for sure! It's dangerous, dirty, and inefficient. -- rdh ]]]
I am the type that will worry about the other 99.9%
and not the measly 0.1% at the corner of the
windshield. Some people (very few) will clean that
.1% and be saved but for the rest of us, we want to
tackle the big fish first then the little ones.
You seem to want to tackle the small fish and not
worry about the bigger ones. Are you the type that
will spend 100% of your time trying to balance your
savings account which is off by a penny or your
checking account which is off by a couple hundred?
[[[ No. I am going after the big fish here (the nuclear power industry, the biggest polluter on Earth) -- except maybe when I'm talking to you. -- rdh ]]]
In order to have a balanced energy plan for the USA,
nuclear MUST be a part of it. Otherwise, you are just
adding to the pollution and greenhouse effect.
[[[ This is industry propaganda, nothing more. Nuclear should play NO part in America's energy solutions and is NO solution to pollution or global warming. -- rdh ]]]
Where we fundamentally disagree is that:
I do not beleive that low levels of radiation are
harmful, and if they are, are not harmful enough for
me to even worry about them.
[[[ So you have a belief which is based on illusions and delusions, and I cannot change it by showing you facts and introducing you to the work of scientists who have studied the issues carefully. That produces our "fundamental disagreement". In other words, you have developed beliefs but haven't researched the matter enough to see that there is no scientific foundation for those beliefs. -- rdh ]]]
I beleive that the risks from nuclear power far and
away outweigh the potential for risk.
[[[ Of course you do, Mr. Steadham. You deny even the possibility that everything isn't as rosy as your rose-colored glasses make it appear to you, and so of course your beliefs are cast in stone, despite the fact that you can't cite a single valid reference for those beliefs. -- rdh ]]]
Nothing is
without risk (even your beloved renewables).
[[[ Good point! It's the potential degree of risk versus the potential degree of benefits which makes renewables so much better an option than nuclear power. -- rdh ]]]
Using
your argument that even a very small number of deaths
is unacceptable I have to wonder why the deaths that
would be attributed to solar and hydro are acceptable
to you?
[[[ I did not say that. I said the consequences of failure for the nuclear industry are far higher than the nuclear industry admits, the dangers from low level radiation are far higher than the nuclear industry admits, and people in the industry are incapable of seeing past their own noses regarding the facts. That's not to say that every energy solution doesn't have risks and drawbacks. Just that nuclear's risks are too great when better solutions abound, as soon as we stop feeding time and money down the nuclear rathole, creating piles of radioactive waste we don't know what to do with. That's not what you said I said at all. I wish you'd stop misquoting me, even if you can't keep a thought of your own straight for more than about half a letter. -- rdh ]]]
I wonder why the deaths attributed to the
automobile are acceptable to you (I don't see your
website calling for the immediate lowering of the
speed limit to 10 mph or so). I guess the deaths
attributed to nuclear (which have been none in the USA
by the way) are not acceptable because they just
happen to be from nuclear.
[[[ It's not none in the U.S., actually, that's another one of your fallacies, but again you are misquoting me and misstating my main concern, which is for when things go really wrong -- so called "worst case scenarios", which I contend we are a lot closer to on a daily basis than you seem to think. -- rdh ]]]
So, I guess with you...what caused the death is what
really matters and not the death itself. How can I
argue with illogic like that?
[[[ You are the illogical one, Mr. Steadham, and your trust in nuclear power is your illogical religion. I'd let it go, but by your (and others') failure to consider the consequences of your industry's actions, your industry has killed and is killing people I love, and I resent that. -- rdh ]]]
Regards,
Tim S.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
================================================================
[[[ Note to readers: The points Mr. Steadham makes below, while appearing detailed and relevant, are actually fairly pedestrian and off-topic, and are for the most part answered elsewhere in this document, and in other documents such as those posted here:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR (WASTE) GENERATING STATION --
an accident waiting to happen:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm
Particularly, this document:
HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE NRC HOLDS ALL THE CARDS?
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/nrcregs1.htm
Mr. Steadham's biggest mistake is that he thinks I am suggesting we replace the NRC with local control. I am suggesting we augment NRC regulatory authority with state and local regulatory authority, similar to the way everything else in life is regulated. That's all. I'm just suggesting nuclear power plants be brought in line with the way Americans generally feel that the rest of the country should be regulated (as expressed in the way we normally do things).
Mr. Steadham completely ignores that we do in fact have local regulations which are stronger than state regulations (or they need not exist, since they are, by law, not allowed to be weaker). We have county regulations, and state regulations, each of which must be stronger than the larger group's regulations, or they need not regulate the matter at all since their regulations are not allowed to be weaker. But in the case of nuclear, most state agencies across the country have ceded their authority to the NRC to enforce the regulations that do exist, let alone to enact tougher regulations. That is madness! Yet for pointing this out, Mr. Steadham calls me stupid, then backtracks and says only the ideas are stupid and not me. Well, the evidence in this case is very strong that we have an extremely unusual regulatory situation and it should be fixed. -- rdh ]]]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Steadham <tstead@ntirs.org>
Subject: Re: [downwinders] Eugene Cronkite, Dies at 86; Found Cancer's Links to Radiation
To: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
As a side note, I generally don't label things as
stupid, but you mentioned three REALLY stupid "facts"
to oppose nuclear power.
> * Nuclear power is prone to outages, both planned
> and unplanned.
ALL power plants are prone to unplanned outages and
ALL plants require planned outages. I don't think
"prone" is valid to describe planned outages.
[[[ Prone is a valid description of something that's likely to occur. But, let's forget the semantics. You clearly understood my intent (for once). -- rdh ]]]
I think the point you are trying to make
(unsuccessfully) is that NPPs are MORE subject to
outages and therefore are not as reliable as other
plants. I pretty much tore that statement to shreds
with the figures I provided in my earlier email as I
proved that NPP reliability and capacity factors are
doing extremely well compared to other forms of power
generation.
Companies that own NPPs use them as baseline power
plants. Since they are baseline power plants, they
are the most stable - by default.
You probably mean that NPPs with their more complex
systems are more prone to outages than other power
plants. This is simply untrue - look at the figures I
provided. In fact, the shear fact that their capacity
factors and generation have been more than adequate to
meet the peak demands of the customers (which is what
you are really driving at) means that NPPs - even with
their outages are STILL reliable enough to provide the
power we need.
[[[ The comparative unreliability of all large-scale power generation and specifically nuclear, has been covered in detail earlier in this document. -- rdh ]]]
Of all the reasons to oppose nuclear power, this is
one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. Another
stupid argument is:
> * Whatever we eventually do with the waste will cost
> a lot more than
> expected or promised.
It strikes me as odd that someone will make a
financial statement without knowing exactly how waste
will be disposed of, when it will happen, and how much
it will cost. One does need to know what the general
scope of work will be before you make an estimate.
[[[ You're right, knowing the scope of the work is the only way to make a reliable estimate, but a minimum estimate can be based on knowing that no inexpensive solution exists and the problem is already enormous. Sure, a radiation-eating-and-neutralizing bacteria might be discovered or invented and poof -- the problem will go away. But it would be unrealistic to count on such luck. -- rdh ]]]
Just like you, I am into pumps. I don't know if
software is your full time job, but mine is designing
pumps. Imagine someone calling you and saying that
they need a new pump for their wastewater treatment
plant. They have no idea what type of pump the want,
they have no idea what their duty point will be, they
have no idea what materials they will want, and they
have no idea of how they will modify their plant.
Yet, although the only thing they know is what they
want to pump to do (i.e. move wastewater), they
somehow know how much the entire project will cost and
know that it will be over budget.
[[[ Imagine you were asked to estimate the cost for this job. Would you assume it would be inexpensive or would you caution the client with a worst-case scenario? Would you at least quote a low-end cost "the least expensive wastewater pump available today costs $X" or would you blithely promise that by the time they are ready to buy, less expensive solutions would surely be invented? If your "solution" to the nuclear waste problem is any indication, clearly you would misguide the client. -- rdh ]]]
Now, I have to say that of all the reasons that
someone has against nuclear power, I think the
absolute STUPIDEST and ignorant one I have heard is:
> * Nuclear regulatory agencies are heavily lopsided
> towards "big,
> centralized government" which is the antithesis of
> what Americans usually
> prefer.
I take this to mean that you feel that because Federal
agencies regulate nuclear power plants, they add to
"bigger government" and are therefore bad because we
want "smaller government."
Wait a minute...this is just like saying that ANY
activity that requires a federal agency is bad and
should be abolished. Let's see the "logic" in this.
Just off the top of my head:
[[[ You have completely misinterpreted this concern as explained elsewhere. --- rdh ]]]
1. 50 possible currencies because the Treasury Dept
contributes to bigger. Let's become like Italy where
merchants in the next state may not accept your money.
2. 50 possible independent militaries because the
Defense Dept. contributes to bigger government. Let’s
get back to militias I guess.
3. 50 possible standards for Paramedic and EMT
training because the USDOT contributes to bigger
government. Let's have an EMS system like we had
before where morgues ran ambulances with untrained (or
minimally trained providers).
4. 50 possible standards for highway signs and
markings because the USDOT contributes to bigger
government. Talk about confusing when driving to
another state because all the signs look different and
traffic laws are not consistent.
5. 50 possible standards for environmental protection
because the EPA contributes to bigger government. I
guess it's good to let certain states determine what
pollution levels are acceptable to them even though
their actions affect many other states.
[[[ We have this and it seems to work okay because state and local standards can only be more stringent than federal standards. I'm glad I live in California where environmental protection laws call for, for example, lower air pollution emissions from cars and a smoke-free indoor environment. -- rdh ]]]
6. 50 possible sets of standards for occupational
health and safety because OSHA contributes to big
government. I guess its better not to have uniform
workplace safety regulations and sweat shops.
[[[ We have state OSHA -- at least in California -- and I wish their jurisdiction included the state's nuclear power plants. --- rdh ]]]
7. 50 state police departments that have jurisdiction
beyond their state's boundary because the FBI and US
Marshalls contribute to bigger government. I guess we
can't investigate crimes that have national impact.
8. 50 possible sets of standards for medicine and food
safety because the FDA contributes to big government.
I guess a person would just have to gamble that if
they buy a prescription in another state and hope that
they get the same drug as the one the buy in their
home state.
[[[[ California Organic Food Act of 1990; Penna. Dept. of Agr., etc.. -- rdh ]]]
9. 50 possible standards for airline safety and flight
control because the FAA contributes to big government.
I guess having uniform procedures, rules, training,
etc. isn't needed because it's not like planes fly
from state to state....
10. 50 possible sets of standards for nuclear power
regulation and safety because the NRC contributes to
bigger government. I guess the fact that an accident
at one plant won't affect people in other states.
[[[ I'm glad to finally see you admit that a nuclear power plant could have an accident. (Well, at least a state-regulated one, if not a nationally regulated one, forgetting as you do that the state regulations do not replace national ones, they only enhance them.) -- rdh ]]]
These are just ten reasons that I came up with on the
fly (I have more, but time does not permit and ten is
enough to get my point across) of why it is totally
absurd to say that nuclear is bad because the NRC
contributes to big government. Using that logic, we
need to abolish each and every department listed above
because they too contribute to bigger government and
are therefore not needed....I guess we could "live"
with the results of such stupidity.
What really makes this the most stupid statement I
have heard is that it would be totally inefficient.
See, "big government" is really a stupid phrase being
thrown around quite a bit today. When you boil it all
down, what people want is a more efficient government
- both state and local. It cannot be argued
successfully with any intelligence that the federal
government needs to be abolished.
Let's take a quick peep at the efficiency that would
be lost is each state were responsible for regulating
their own plants and only their plants (by the way,
each state does do this to some extent, but their
regulatory role is much more limited in scope):
[[[ In 1962 California ceded virtually ALL regulatory control to the AEC (now the DOE and the NRC). This mistake needs to be undone. -- rdh ]]]
Although there are not presently nuclear plants in
every state, I use the value of 50 because each state
would have to maintain their own regulator agency
unless nuclear power is banned in that state. In this
case, the number would be less than fifty...but my
point is still the same regardless of whether it’s 50
or only 20.
1. The NRC maintains a staff of highly educated
engineers and scientists with expertise ranging from
statistics and economics to thermal hydraulics and
reactor physics. Imagine if each state needed to have
all of these experts on staff (and they would). How
much of a NET increase would it be across the entire
US of positions? Engineers would like it because it'd
mean more jobs, but the public would call it wasteful.
Imagine the increase in cost to the taxpayers for
having to keep all of those highly paid people on the
payroll. Do you really think a reactor physicist
would work for the state in a time when they are in
high demand, not many of them, and meager pay scales?
Supply and demand, my friend, supply and demand.
[[[ For somebody who has no grasp of economics, you sure are quick with a cliche -- rdh ]]]
2. The NRC maintains many computer codes that are
allowed to be used for calculations. Imagine if each
state had to maintain computer codes that were
allowable for engineering calculations. There would
undoubtedly be some codes authorized in some states
that were not authorized in others for whatever
reasons. If a utility used a previously authorized
code by the NRC but now the new state regulatory group
bans it, they would have to spend billions on
re-calculating their design basis. Then, anti-nuke
people like you would just add that to the list of
price tags and say, "look...nuclear is too
expensive..."
3. There would be 50 potential different sets of
safety standards and review processes. Vendors would
have to submit their applications to 50 different
agencies, using 50 different forms, and attend 50
different sets of hearings - possibly resulting in 50
different designs with 50 different sets of
calculations and safety evaluations. Man, talk about
bureaucracy at its worst nightmare! Talk about
increasing the chance of administrative error making
its way into a potential for disaster!
[[[ It never occurs to you that the underlying purpose of regulation is to protect the public, not to make things easy for industry. -- rdh ]]]
4. Without a set standard that all NPPs follow, there
is no single source responsibility to ensure that
plants have reliable procedures in place to adequately
protect the health and safety of the public. Each
state's definition of reliable and adequate would be
different even though an accident at one plant, as you
agree, would have ramifications in other states.
[[[ That's twice! Now that you've admitted that accidents can occur, perhaps we can have a more rational discussion about the costs versus the benefits of nuclear power versus other, far more benign, options. -- rdh ]]]
5. The NRC currently has regulatory authority over
many federal agencies in many different activities
that they did not use to have. If states assume
regulatory control, how can the state agency regulate
a federal agency? Federal trumps state, not vice
versa.
[[[ Not exactly. State regulations must be stronger than Federal regulations, or there is no reason to have state regulatory control, since it cannot be weaker. Similarly, County regulations must be stronger than state, and local stronger than county. That's how things normally work, but in the case of nuclear power plants, the local, county, and state authorities have all abdicated their regulatory responsibilities and California agencies, for example, won't even look at safety issues on the presumption that that is the NRC's job and not theirs. But their excuse for this abdication in tenuous, as I explain in a document posted here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/nrcregs1.htm
-- rdh ]]]
Would it be more efficient to have each state maintain
regulatory control over their own and only their own
plants?
[[[ This is not about efficiency. It's about safety and the right for a group of people to demand a higher level of safety if they so choose. -- rdh ]]]
No. It would cost taxpayers much more and
would have no positive effect on the safety and well
being of the public - it could even have negative
impacts. People in one state would be bitching
because the state beside them allows for less
stringent regulations. The federal government is
needed in many areas - telling our schools how to
educate our children is not one but regulating the
nuclear industry (as a whole) IS one of them.
[[[ That is an opinion statement, and by no means a fact. -- rdh ]]]
In the future, I will not respond to such idiotic
arguments as these two because I don’t have the time.
Please make sure that your arguments from here on have
some degree of intelligence and thought behind them
because I really hate wasting my time on stupid
statements.
[[[ If that's how you feel you should have sympathy for what I've had to put up with from you: Contradictions, misquoting me, factual errors, and a general inability to keep the debate topics properly isolated from each other so that we don't go round and round in circles. -- rdh ]]]
Please understand: I am not calling YOU stupid or
anything else derogatory. Heck anyone that designs
software is neither stupid nor a moron.
[[[ And if their software runs on standard machines all around the world, and has been running on thousands of machines without recompiling the EXE since 1994, they probably know a thing or two about reliability. -- rdh ]]]
You have my
respect in that regard...I am merely calling your
above statements stupid and lacking of any intelligent
thought whatsoever.
[[[ Perhaps you just don't understand what government is for, Mr. Steadham. It's to protect the citizens from people like you. -- rdh ]]]
There is a difference. I
criticize ideas, NOT people.
[[[ It's a pretty subtle difference in this case, but thanks for trying to maintain courtesy. -- rdh ]]]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
===================================================================
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:06:00 -0700
From: smd
Subject: Re: Fwd: [downwinders] Newspaper to pay for defaming Nikitin
One of my favorite Russkie Newspapers is
http://www.exile.ru Nitty gritty low down and dirty fun site
Yes its always been true, every single group has
its own agenda, hidden agenda and operatives, counter opps.
So it takes a lot of extra effort to stay on course
and walk the tightrope of the straight and narrow.
Even then, other sides can manipulate every group easily
either internally or externally or through media, financial political
means etc.
So like Bruce Lee always said, "Baby, If you come to battle, there are
no rules,
and you better be prepared to fight with every ounce of your mind, body
and soul".
For fighting against the Heroin Triads, he paid with his life and his
son's life.
There have been a number of martyrs in the nuclear movement,
and many remember Karen Silkwood, but not many remember
the guy who laid down on the tracks at Alameda Naval Ship Yard
to stop the White Nuclear Weapons Train, who had his legs cut clean off,
or the long forgotten Nuclear Liberation Front, all of whom are MIA
and presumed lost, after several bombings of nuclear labs and rocket
facilities,
or the many Nuclear Scientists who turned against Gen. Groves
and Dr. Strangelove Teller and were 'terminated', or the many Russkies
who sacrificed their lives to prevent numerous Nuclear Holocausts
at Missile Sites, Submarines and Reactors. Its a long unknown list,
but we should all take a minute to say a prayer for these heroes who so
generously
sacrificed their lives while trying to stop the Nuclear Insanity and
the many
many times God has intervened to save the world, like when that A-4 jet
loaded with nuclear weapons mysteriously slowly rolled off the carrier
hanger deck
into 16,000 feet of water off Okinawa as they prepared to nuke Hanoi,
causing Johnson to change his mind about using nukes on Vietnam.
Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with Thee,
Blessed art thou amongst Women
And blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary Mother of God
Pray for us sinners,
Now and at the hour of our death
Amen.
May God Have Mercy,
Help And Guide All Us Downwinders
SMD
[[[ I don't know about the Bruce Lee part but I can't say it ain't so. Much of the rest, history shows to be true. Hat's off to the author for his compassion and wit! Many times God has intervened, as when having a automatic SCRAM at Perry today, just when Steadham tells me they haven't had one since gosh-who-knows-when (1998 he says, but that's bogus too). -- rdh ]]]
===================================================================
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:34:25 -0700
To: editor@nctimes.com
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com>
Subject: Article in the North County Times, July 7th, 2001 quotes me
accurately
To: Editor, NC Times
From: Russell D. Hoffman,. concerned citizen
Re: Article in the North County Times, July 7th, 2001 quotes me accurately
Date: July 11th, 2001
To The Editor:
The article shown below actually accurately quotes me! Probably someone who works or worked for the nuclear industry will fire off a letter to the NC Times to twist what I said into something silly, but Phil Diehl got it right and I thank him.
It's interesting that while the grid spokesperson quoted in the article says they are happy to get any electricity they can, nevertheless at least in California, the private renewable energy producer (i.e., homes, small businesses, etc.) cannot sell their product to the grid for the benefit of all, except to "zero their meter". They cannot be paid for supplying excess energy to the grid. This is probably the single biggest stumbling block to small-scale renewable energy solutions. I bet that it would take less than six months of allowing anyone who supplies clean energy to the grid to get paid a fair price for that energy, for there to be many extra megawatts of capacity added from thousands of small-scale producers. These potential renewable energy producers cannot right now justify the cost of installing renewable energy equipment based solely on their own needs.
There are many environmentalists who wish to live "off the grid" using only renewable energy, and that's fine as far as it goes. But in most cases those who wish to live "off the grid" must build excess capacity because not all renewable sources work when needed, so you need a mix of sources. And, they may also need to use lead-acid storage batteries to have energy available when they need it. Better to feed it to the grid and let others use the energy, then take energy when you need it if you can't make it yourself right at that time.
Many times, a mix of renewables -- which is needed to ensure reliable local power -- will actually supply you with MORE energy than you need. It should be possible to sell that excess energy to the grid. These "micropayments" could go a long way towards alleviating the twin problems of not enough energy and little of it being cleanly produced.
The fact is, we don't need San Onofre Nuclear (Waste) Generating Station, we have never needed it, and it has been a hindrance to building a sustainable energy solution for Southern California, in addition to being a grave and constant threat to our health and well-being.
Russell D. Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
==============================================================
At 02:38 PM 7/12/01 , Tim Steadham wrote:
SUBJECT: Re: Why Germany abandoned its nuclear program
O.K., I looked into the issue since it appears to be
one of concern to you (I don't know why) and I found
out some very interesting things.
Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power has been
solely a political maneuver by the Green Party to
advance their anti-nuclear agenda. It has had nothing
to do with any problems at any plant nor any
economical concerns.
[[[ It had to do with the logic of abandoning the nuclear option, mainly (as I understand it) because of the waste and waste transportation issues, which should be enough to make us abandon it too. -- rdh ]]]
I posted a message on the forum which explains what
happened, how Sweden did the same thing, and why
public opinion has changed 180 degrees in Sweeden
because now they don't want their plants shut down.
[[[ I have not heard that. Can you cite an article that says this or something? -- rdh ]]]
Also, I posted another messgae of why the new nuclear
plant designs (which have already been approved by the
NRC) are actually MORE economical than coal plants
today.
[[[ I'm not for Coal, but you keep coming back to coal. Fooey on coal. Stop even mentioning it if you want this debate to move forward. Coal is bad, too, but nuclear is 1000 times worse because there is no solution to the waste problem. You avoid that issue by claiming Dry Cask Storage is safe, which it isn't (and we can talk about that some more if you like, but it's a long way from where we started, which was determining where you have any proof whatsoever that plutonium is only as dangerous as you claim, and that its dangers are not closer to what Dr. Gofman or Dr. Caldicott suggests). You have avoided entirely the issue of longer term storage problems -- what if we had 1000 nuclear plants running right now -- we'd have all the energy we need, right? And our nuclear waste problem would be 10 times worse,and it's already intractable. And we'd probably be running out of nuclear fuel, on top of everything else! Thankfully, activists before me have managed to limit the number to just over 100 today. -- rdh ]]]
The estimates on how much it will cost to build a NPP
do not take into account the newer designs and
certianly NOT the AP600 design by Westinghouse - they
assume the older, 1950's designs which are much more
cumbersome, large, complex, etc. I don't want to see
any more plants built on 1950's technology, and I'm
sure you don't either. These are exciting times and
nuclear will make a resurgence in the USA.
[[[ Over how many dead bodies will this resurgence happen? -- rdh ]]]
Also, we talk about probability of cancers caused from
the minute amounts of radiation given off by NPPs and
how just one death as a result of cancer is too
many.... But, we have not talked about how many
people have received lung cancer from the billions of
tons of pollution that coal plants have dumped into
our air.
[[[ Here you've really muddled the waters, mixing up a properly running nuclear power plant with a properly running coal plant and ignoring completely, the legacy of a nuclear accident. Chernobyl is no place for a picnic, and won't be for thousands of years. In fact over time the danger area will grow as its poison hits the groundwater below. Just like what would happen here. Just like what is happening at Hanford right now. Many of their tanks are leaking and their pump disposal costs, which were negligible until 1992, are now about $1.5 million each. So they are inventing better pumps -- but from what I've been able to read about these new pumps, they are not generations better, using some of the new designs I've seen, but rather they are still pretty standard technology pumps. It's like the difference between building a new space shuttle, using all the latest technologies to do so, and instead moving forward by generations, to magnetic levitation launch techniques. They are doing the former because for them, it's "cost effective", because they still only think they are going to have to stir that muck for 30 years. They don't calculate the benefits of building pumps that will make a difference all over society, and they don't calculate any of the costs beyond 30 years, as if the tanks will magically disappear after that. -- rdh ]]]
I don't have right now (but will look for) the risk
factors of people developing lung cancer from one coal
plant. If you comapre this to the risk of cancer from
a NPP, then NPPs actually decrease the cancer rate
when compared to coal (even if you assume super safe
coal with no radiation released - which will not
happen).
[[[ You're mixing apples with stale fruit here. A properly running nuclear power plant is not the problem. Its waste is. Coal should be replaced as soon as we're done replacing the nukes. Neither are needed. You are backtracking this debate into topics that were settled years ago. Please stop comparing to coal, coal this, coal that, clean coal, black lung, whatever. I'm not for coal either, Mr. Steadham. There are alternatives to coal, oil, and nuclear and those are what I am for. Check out www.geni.org for more information on alternative energy options. -- rdh ]]]
How about comparing the risks of developing
cancer from all industrial processes that we have
today - how do they compare with NPPs? I don't know
the answer - do you? I promise, I will look into it
though.
[[[ Radioactive materials have some properties which make them particularly difficult to contain, which make them lethal in vanishingly small doses, and which make the consequences of their misuse extremely hazardous. Other dangerous industrial processes -- which, I might add, also need proper regulatory control -- are no excuse for this particular process. At least with other things, something unique results from the process which could not be obtained any other way -- a car, say, or a mountain bike (one of my favorite things), or a CD-ROM, or a computer, or something to eat, or medicine, or pumps or whatever. Nuclear power produces ONLY ONE THING (besides tons and tons of waste) and nuclear power is far from unique in its ability to produce that one useful thing.
That one thing is of course electrons, and there is no debate that other methods are comparable in price even if it can be argued that nuclear power is somehow a little cheaper -- an argument I've given a good run for here, and could go into greater detail if needed. The bottom line is you should always use the cleanest process possible.
Nuclear power does not produce cheap electrons. Whatever voodoo economics you've used to convince yourself it does, does not change that fact. Nuclear power's electrons come at a huge risk and the costs cannot be reckoned fully because the cost of waste disposal is still unknown. And all it produces is something lots of other things could produce, things which MAY be a little more expensive, but then again, if there is an accident with nuclear power, the balance sheet will be permanently turned against nuclear, because all the nuke plant's profit in the whole world could not buy back, say, the Southern California coastline if San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station were to get slammed by a 747.
For electrons, we risk disaster. Surely among the thousands of other ways to produce electrons or conserve their use, there are ways to replace this crazy, deadly way of producing them! Surely from the pumps I have seen in the last few years, which are not on the market, is enough added efficiency, if they WERE ubiquitous, to conserve all the electrons nuclear power plants produce. Every little one of them! Moving fluids is the #1 use of energy in most metropolises around the world (I was told this by a DOE scientist in a conversation at a meeting hosted by DOE for Pacific Rim nations which the Global Energy Network Institute was invited to attend (they were they only non-profit organization there, by the way -- www.geni.org ).) So don't tell me we need nukes just because other industrial processes exist! That's absurd. If they produced something vital to society that couldn't be produced any other way, that would be one thing, but this whole debate is actually over how to get electrons into wires so we can distribute it to people. There are better ways to do that than with nuclear power, coal, or oil. (Oil, by the way, should be conserved for its wonderful use in plastics, medicines, medical devices, etc..) --rdh ]]]
Regards,
Tim
P.S. Back to the 1 lb of Pu argument. I found a
reference that states that over 10,000 pounds of Pu
have been released into the environment as a result of
weapons testing. Do your figures correlate with that
because if they do then there has been enough Pu
released to kill the entire world thousands of times
over (if one assumes the 1 lb. argument is correct
which it clearly is not.)
If you take the 12 deaths/mg as accurate - that is
about 54 billion people or roughly enough to kill the
entire world almost 9 times over. Are you sure that
the 12 deaths/mg is correct or is the 10,000 lb of Pu
in error?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
==================================================================
Mr. Steadham,
Here, you're mixing up the diabolical experiment we started this discussion on, with real life and the dispersal of radioactive materials into the environment.
Is it really this hard for you to keep track of all your arguments? I'm composing a response to your previous letter, but this sort of silliness will really delay my ability to tie up all the lose ends. Please spend a bit more time rereading what you send me from now on for logical fallacies, before you send it.
And please, cite your references. I mean, you tell me you "found a reference". That's weak. But anyway, I have a more useful reference for past releases, that lists those releases in Curies, not pounds. (NASA's 1995 FEIS for the Cassini Mission, page 3-44.)
Thank you in advance.
-- rdh
At 02:38 PM 7/12/01 , you wrote:
P.S. Back to the 1 lb of Pu argument. I found a
reference that states that over 10,000 pounds of Pu
have been released into the environment as a result of
weapons testing. Do your figures correlate with that
because if they do then there has been enough Pu
released to kill the entire world thousands of times
over (if one assumes the 1 lb. argument is correct
which it clearly is not.)
If you take the 12 deaths/mg as accurate - that is
about 54 billion people or roughly enough to kill the
entire world almost 9 times over. Are you sure that
the 12 deaths/mg is correct or is the 10,000 lb of Pu
in error?
================================================================
At 05:28 AM 7/13/01 , Tim Steadham wrote:
It appears that my email was either right on time or a
day late.
[[[ It was a day late and a dollar short. It was bogus and inaccurate, and untimely at best. Anything but "right on time". It was also wrong because there have been lots of automatic SCRAMS since 1998. -- rdh ]]]
Suffice it to say then that as of the
writing of the report card on nuclear power that I
cited (which was in March or April - I forget) there
were zero unplanned scrams in the USA since 1998.
[[[ You said it, and it was wrong. -- rdh ]]]
Even still, 1 in over 300 reactor-years is a pretty
good record.
[[[ It is a nonexistent record you evidently made up. -- rdh ]]]
I wonder how other technologies
compare...
[[[ Every technology compares favorably to nuclear power on this one, Mr. Steadham, because no other technology comes so close to disaster every time anything goes wrong anywhere in the plant, whether it's once in three years or whatever. Other technologies don't have SCRAMS at all and are much less risky to society.
Yesterday's NRC PSR (Plant Status Report) also lists a reactor (Monticello) whose Primary Containment System was declared inoperable due to a condition they discovered when another plant with a similar setup notified them of what they had found. It had been inoperable for about 30 years, since the plant was built. This is your idea of a well-maintained, safe industry? I don't think so, and the actual record of events and close calls agrees with me. Nuclear power is dangerous, dirty, and inefficient. It's an incredibly stupid way to produce electricity, something we could do with far more benign and far more reliable technologies. -- rdh ]]]
Tim
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
=================================================================
[[[ Now please, Mr. Steadham, you say you tried to answer all of my points. Clearly, I've made a substantial effort to respond to all of your points. So, please be specific and let me know if there is anything you feel is unanswered. You sent me no less than 20 letters in 5 days. Now take your time and consider what I have said. I have other matters to attend to. For example, the incident at Monticello, which you brushed off in your last letter to me as minor, was in fact anything but minor. For 30 years the primary containment appears to have been inoperable. I would not be surprised if this results in an huge NRC fine. Your brush-off without even looking into the matter at all, like even reading NRC event #38130, is simply typical of your attitude of disrespect for me, for Dr. Caldicott, for everyone at NIRS whom you also slam (and who your web site appears to want to conflict with, name-wise), and for the spirit of honest and forthright debate. And for American values regarding integrity and the search for truth.
I have presented to you in this letter numerous factual errors in your presentation. Your opinions and beliefs are based largely on completely non-existent facts. We'll see how you handle this letter, but my hopes are dimming that you will ever attempt to learn for yourself that the facts I have presented to you here are indeed for the most part extremely accurate, and what you have responded with are not facts at all, but beliefs based on wishful thinking; the last hopes for a murderous, dying industry which is the biggest boondoggle in history. Lastly, I challenge you to publish these "debates" in their entirety at your web site. -- rdh ]]]
====================================================================