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