----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Of course, none of those journalists ever bothered to check the facts
> first. Of course not -- heaven forbid they'd actually do something as
> unethical as publishing real facts. And no environmentalist group would
> ever bother to check the facts either, or hire a scientist to do it for
> them. That would be an outrage, wouldn't it -- environmentalist groups
> actually showing the world what big corporations are doing to the
> environment in the name of the Sacred Quarterly Profits, and backing it up
> with factual information...
>
But, the question is, where is the factual information? I've been able to
obtain much mine just from a web search. I've been able to obtain others
because I've worked in nuclear safety.
The sources I have quoted are not corporate sites. They are independant
research groups and professional societies. One source was a medical
research group, another was the American Society of Health Physicists. Do
you consider those groups to be industrial groups?
Second, as Zimmy had said, methodology can be checked. I've looked at the
methodology of the green sites and it is virtually non-existant. No
statistical analysis, only stories. Plus, I quoted the natural variation of
background radiation and the lack of a correlation with cancer as evidence
against low level radiation being a significant cause of health risks. I'd
be curious to see why an increase of 200.0 mrem to 200.1 would cause deaths,
when an increase of 200 to 400 is not seen to cause deaths.
What I've seen you quote is groups of people who say nuclear power is
dangerous, but I don't see you quote evidence of damage done. If the
environmentalists have paid to have a rigorous scientific study done, and it
shows scientifically credible evidence of damage, then why can't anyone find
it? Why are only generalites published?
If you cannot find any evidence that holds up to scientific investigation,
and you still hold your views in the absence of such evidence, then why
shouldn't I conclude that you don't consider the scientific validity of a
claim to be important?
> And all those individual environmentalists take whatever Greenpeace says
> for gospel, because they obviously can't think for themselves (otherwise,
> they would be smashing solar panels and windmills, and dance around the
> nearest nuclear plant in worship).
No, not at all. Let me be clearer about ecconomic feasibility. It is not a
matter of profits. Profit levels for nuclear plants represent a very modest
return on investment. You could elimininate profits, and cut prices no more
than 10%. Actually, the overhead in having the government do it much more
than 10%, but that's a side point.
According to your figures, it would cost about $30,000 up front to install
just the solar cells to supply the electricity for a house in the
Neatherlands. Add the cost for energy storage, and you can get closer to
$60,000. That's just too much money for people to be able to afford it. If
all of Europe were to go on such a system, assuming 4 person households, it
would cost more than 11 trillion dollars. Plus, there would be a
significant maintaince cost. Plus, there are all the environmental problems
associated with the manufacture of solar panals. Why are those swept under
the rug?
One final question. Why are you sure I am wrong, even though you do not
quote solid data to refute my data? I'm fairly certain that the
anti-nuclear position is wrong because I do not see good methodology in the
reports that claims damage. I don't see science being done.
Dan M.
