Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!wjh12!genrad!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Lockport Blast: safety of oil vs nuclear power Message-ID: <3027@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 31-Jul-84 13:07:20 EDT Article-I.D.: ecsvax.3027 Posted: Tue Jul 31 13:07:20 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 00:07:22 EDT References: tty3b.447 tellab1.338 druxv.1588 teltone.651 utzoo.4146 Lines: 45 < ... quoting ...> >From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) Mon Jul 30 11:19:09 1984 >Come on, Henry, everyone should know by now that ALL radiation is dangerous. >There is no such thing as a "safe level"; there is only a officially >approved "acceptable level". "Acceptable" to whom is never talked about. I guess it's worth noting that light is electromagnetic radiation, so perhaps I should move into a cave somewhere ... :-) In any event, a number of studies suggest there perhaps ARE safe levels of ionizing radiation. For instance, mortality and morbidity in China is actually lower in some areas with higher than normal background radiation. There doesn't seem to be any clear relation in the US or Europe between low-level radiation and cancer, birth defects, and so on; studies have been inconclusive. I am very leery of going by what "everybody knows" because it often turns out that "everybody knows" that we'd better keep commie pinkos out of this country and the dinosaurs are gone because they turned a blind eye to the threat of pornography. Also, I believe questions like "acceptable for whom" have been discussed quite a bit. I have certainly seen a lot of that go by in the scientific press, even though I get none of the specialist journals in the health physics field. In any event, I find it hard to believe that everyone in favor of nuclear power is a scoundrel or a fool; I have met too many distinguished scientists of both camps to believe that the issue is as simply cut and dried as some of the discussion on this net has implied. >I can't believe this. This man is comparing "a few centuries" worth of >high-level radioactive waste with a fall from a rooftop. This is incredible. The point is that if we can keep these wastes out of the environment for just a few centuries (not exactly an impossible dream), then EVEN IF THEY LATER leak out we are no worse off than we are already. In fact, it could be argued that if we manage to keep the wastes out of the environment for longer than that (which we almost certainly can), we are in fact LOWERING the amount of radiation in the environment, if only by a little. As I have said before, it is a pity these questions become so emotional and politicised, with people swearing there is no way you can convince them that they are mistaken. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary