"J. van Baardwijk" wrote:
>
> At 00:51 4-7-01 +0100, Andy Crystall wrote:
>
> >Now look at the cancer rates arround a COAL fired power station..
> >over EIGHT times, in some cases, the national average. And that's
> >before we consider the CO� and other pollutants it spews...
>
> Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. I don't know -- I don't have the data.
>
> Your statement looks like that old tactic: tone down a problem by pointing
> at an other, bigger problem. But that's not gonna work -- not on this list.
>
> The issue here is whether or not nuclear power plants are safe. Pointing at
> conventional power plants and say "the cancer rates around those are MUCH
> higher than around nuclear plants" does not proof that nuclear power plants
> are safe. It only points out that nuclear plants aren't the *only* problem.
Jeroen, if the risk of cancer is so high around nuclear power plants, would
there be _any_ live ex-submariners? I spent _years_ of my life within 100 ft.
of the core of a nuke power plant. I have been in contact with many of my
shipmates and I know of none that have died of cancer. Now that's just
anecdotal stuff, but it's pretty convincing to me. I would think that if
submariners were dying of cancer at a rate above normal that it would be the
subject of a lot of publicity and fodder for anti-nukes everywhere.
Doug
