Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site utecfc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!utecfa!utecfc!dennis
From: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Safest Way (far too long to read)
Message-ID: <42@utecfc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 23:23:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: utecfc.42
Posted: Tue Sep 17 23:23:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 11:46:32 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP>
Reply-To: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Organization: Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto
Lines: 80
Summary: 

In article <10@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes:
>
>	The issue is the effect of introducing radioactive *material*, 
>	either through plant spills or leakage from waste storage, 
>	into the food and water we consume. The sun may be a potent source 
>	of radiation. It certainly is not a source of plutonium in my
>	skim milk.

I wouldn't be so sure that the source of much of radiactive *material*
you may consume isn't the sun or the creation of the planet either, but
I lack the references and inclination to take that tack.  I grant that
the plutonium in your skim milk is extremely unlikely to have occurred
there naturally but I do wonder where you think it came from.  I sincerely
doubt it was from a Canadian commercial nuclear reactor since (1) none of
the spent reactor fuel has ever (yet) left the containment building, there
is *no* waste storage since they've yet to figure out how to store it, and
(2) there have (yet) been no spills more serious than amounts of secondary
coolant measured in gallons (unless there has been a `pro-nuke' coverup),
absolutely containing no plutonium and unlikely to contain anything more
than tritium with a half-life of a few days (it is hard to `spill' spent
fuel anyway, it's a solid).  These reactors have a good record so far.

I just asked the refugee from AECL across the room about the situation in
the U.S.  It seems the problem is a little different there, and indeed,
if you lived there you might be wise to move (north?).  He just told me a
horror story about the storage of waste primary coolant from Boiling Water
reactors.  I am not so blind as to assert there are no local problems with
radioactive waste either, these mostly from uranium mines and nuclear
processing plants.  But note that these are almost always fiasco's from the
'40s and '50s, are small and are something we're going to have to deal with
whether we generate nuclear power or not.  I can't see that we've created
major new problems, at least not yet.

(An interesting aside:  The guy from AECL almost threw up when I told him
you'd implied you felt I was `pro-nuke', but that is another story and I've
gone on far too long already.)

I think you miss the point (a result of fanatic-induced tunnel vision?), or
I've not been clear.  So let me be blunt: just what the hell is this?

>	It never ceases to amaze me how certain groups manage to reconcile
>	the view that, for example, acid rain deserves more study because
>	it "really isn't well enough understood," yet dismiss out of
>	hand concerns of environmentalists over the effects of
>	continuing low-level exposure to radioctive material in the
>	air we breath or the foods we eat.

Acid rain study?  What study?  What about action?

I've changed my mind, maybe we should study.  You come on down and we'll try
to figure out whether it's 2 or 3 extra cancers per 100,00 population that's
being induced by ingestion of nuclear material from the Canadian power
industry, whether we've reduced the average man's life by one month or two.
And then we'll figure out what more can be done to reduce our exposure.  This
won't be easy, because as far as I can see (and you've not presented any
objective information to the contrary) there's darn near s.f.a. coming out
of those reactors.

Then we'll head north, maybe to my home town, Sudbury (see, I'm not altogether
unbiased either.  I just hope my priorities are based more on rational fact
than yours seem to be), and take a look at the millions of square miles of
beautiful, productive forest that is already very visibly dieing and may, no,
*will* become a waste land if something isn't done soon.  And don't think its
people versus forest because if acid rain is killing fish and trees I don't
imagine it's real wonderful for people either (no studies about *that*
that I'm aware of).  This time we'll have no trouble finding sources actively
contributing to the problem.  There's a bloody big one in Sudbury and a bunch
of smaller ones all over eastern Canada and the U.S.

I'm tired, my posting reads like a book and I doubt that anyone is with me.
But I'm not going to worry so much about the bills I *may* have to pay
*sometime* in the future when there's a mean looking bill collector at the
door now.  Nuclear power provides extremely unpleasant prospects for the
future, but as long as a single, dirty coal-fired plant remains, give me
the nukes.

No more.  I'll send future tirades in the mail.
----
					Dennis Ferguson
					...!utcsri!utecfc!dennis