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