Dear S, I. The author, to be sure, has clearly expressed herself against nuclear power. Your not-too flattering reference to her, "Hamer here does even better with a half-truth", speaks for itself. She, in fact,provides a sub-heading pretty much near the top: "NUCLEAR POWER: DIRTY, EXPENSIVE & NOT SO GREEN & YES NUCLEAR POWER DOES CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING". She could hardly have been any more explicit and assertive. So the claim that it "is possible that Hamer is less concerned with nuclear power than is Sukla" appears to be a figment of runaway imagination, and nothing less. Hence, the subject line provided by me is quite in tune with the text. Not a sort of forgery, which at times we come across.
II. There are pro-nukes and pro-nukes; and anti-nukes and anti-nukes. I don't imagine that I've ever claimed that opposition to nuclear power is as widespread as to nuclear weapons. Evidently, it is not. Even within the CNDP, that's the situation. And, I've met people, in person, who're against power but for weapons though. But that's definitely not the overall pattern. In the same vein, the observation, "Sukla, who conflate nuclear weapons and nuclear power", is far too inaccurate. III. Quote Ignoring the policies of Japan, South Korea, Brazil and South Africa, all of which have forsaken nuclear weapons and all of whom are serious about nuclear power Unquote I suspect there is a bit of mix-up here. A source indicates the list of states giving up nuclear weapons as: Argentina, Brazil, Iraq, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Algeria, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus: total 12. [Source: < http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-4.html>.] The reasons are divergent. Japan does not figure here. And some recent worries have been aired about Japan. Anti-nuke activists usually cite the examples of Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Ukraine, as more significant cases. The salient point here is that these countries, almost as a rule, had embarked upon their clandestine nuclear weapons programme piggy riding the open and "legitimate" power programme. India is the classic example. North Korea is another. Iran is an "alleged" one. It is of a piece that the yet to be brought into force CTBT has a clause that the Treaty will be brought into force when a specified list of 44 countries, no less, sign up and ratify the Treaty. The basic assumption obviously is that all of them are potential nuclear weapon power, even if not actual. The list was frozen in 1996. Any country even with a research (nuclear) reactor has been included. That's a graphic testimony to the international recognition of the strong linkage between weapon and power. To be sure, "strong linkage" does not mean one *inevitably* leads to the other. Sukla 2010/1/11 S wrote: On 11 Jan 2010 at 0:02, Sukla Sen wrote: > > > Apology To The Earth For Nuclear Bombs And War > > > > *By Mary Hamer, M.D > > It is possible that Hamer is less concerned with nuclear power than is > Sukla > since her headline does not mention nuclear power. However, Sukla is not > all > wrong since she does go on to cite the likes of Helen Caldicott on nuclear > power. For anyone to rely on Caldicott is to lose sight of reason. > > But Hamer does her own bit of selective research. She writes: > > > THANK YOU: South Africa > > > > Thank you South Africa for being: oeThe first ¦ country to ¦ entirely > > dismantle it's nuclear weapons programme . (54) David Albright states: oe > > South Africa is the only country to voluntarily give up it's nuclear > > weapons. ¦ South Africa 's abandonment of it's 20 " 30 year old nuclear > > weapons program remains unique . (55) > > But no mention of South Africa's nuclear power program. That may be too > embarrassing for activists, including unfortunately Sukla, who conflate > nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Ignoring the policies of Japan, South > Korea, Brazil and South Africa, all of which have forsaken nuclear weapons > and all of whom are serious about nuclear power, is the usual nuclear > activist > approach, but Hamer here does even better with a half-truth. > > I saw this blog today, which may interest people who are less excitable > than > anti-nuclear power activists. > > S > > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/10/823508/-What-it-is-Like- > Working-at-a-Nuclear-Power-Plant<http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/10/823508/-What-it-is-Like-Working-at-a-Nuclear-Power-Plant> > > What it is Like Working at a Nuclear Power Plant > > by Blubba > > Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:57:00 PM PST > > In junior high I read Studs Terkel's Working, a collection of interviews > with > regular stiffs talking about their jobs. It made a deep impression on me. I > was > struck by how wrong many of my preconceived notions were. I remember the > waitress who loved her job and was genuinely enthusiastic about providing > good service to her customers. Where I expected the waitress to be bored > and restless I found a dignified intelligent person enjoying her career. > Then > there was the jaded newspaper boy. Where I somehow envisioned the > newspaper boy would be happy and greeted at every door with milk and > cookies, I saw a cynic. My recollection is he did nothing but complain > about > the flinty people on his route who constantly tried to stiff him for the > subscription. > > With that, allow me to provide some insights about work at nuclear power > plants. Depending on the feedback I'll do others, otherwise I won't waste > your > time and mine. > > Story #1 - The Man With the Crapped Up Cash. > > Last Thursday a worker was attempting to leave the Ft. Calhoun nuclear > plant just north of Omaha when he set off the radiation portal monitor. > When > you work at a nuclear plant the last thing you do before exiting the > turnstile is > pass through a device that looks something like the metal detector you pass > through at airports. It confirms you haven't inadvertently picked up > contamination somewhere that you might track home. In this case the portal > monitor went off, indicating the worker was "crapped up" somewhere. At this > point the worker would have been gone over with a "frisker", analogous to > the > hand held metal detecting wands you see TSA wield. The problem was > narrowed down to the worker's wallet and eventually isolated to three > dollar > bills. The money was likely then put in a germanium lithium-drifted (GeLi, > pronounced "jelly") radiation detector to characterize the specific > isotopes > involved. It was Iodine-131. Make no mistake, I-131 is serious stuff. It is > one > of the primary fission products of concern in the event of a nuclear plant > meltdown. It is responsible for most of the long term health effects from > Chernobyl. Like ordinary Iodine, I-131 will make a bee line for your > thyroid but > unlike stable Iodine will hammer your thyroid with beta particles > (basically > energetic electrons) and gammas (like x-rays only stronger). Consequently > some states stock potassium iodine (KI) tables to distribute to the public > in > the event of an accident. By taking KI you load up the thyroid with stable > iodine so the body will reject the radioactive sort that falls out later. > > But where did the I-131 come from in this case? Not that I-131 doesn't > exist > in nuclear plants but during normal operation most of it remains encased in > the fuel and we only detect it in microscopic amounts. Moreover, nuclear > plants go to great lengths to limit the areas that are contaminated and > work > hard to prevent workers from becoming contaminated when they do have to > work in such areas. This individual performed no such work that day. Any > why would the dollar bills be contaminated but not the worker's clothes or > skin? Why just I-131 and not any of the other radionuclides you would > expect > to see as well? > > The most likely answer is the worker unknowingly brought the contaminated > money with him. You see, I-131 is also a commonly used medical isotope. > When my sister developed Graves Disease years ago they dosed her with I- > 131 to pretty much destroy her dangerously overactive thyroid. She now > takes synthetic hormones to compensate. But at the time of her treatment it > was a big inconvenience. It took weeks for the I-131 to leave her system. > In > the mean time she was a walking radiation hazard. She was not allowed to > sleep with her husband for a month so as not to expose him unnecessarily. > She had to launder her clothes separately. She wasn't even supposed to hug > her young nieces and nephews until it cleared out of her system. > Ironically, > she is an radiation tech at a hospital and was not allowed to return to > work so > as not to fog the x-ray film. Knowing my sister, I'm sure she followed her > doctor's orders to the letter. But apparently not all patients are as > cooperative. Most likely a recently treated patient paid for snacks at a > convenience store (or something along those lines) and the unwitting worker > followed behind and received some of the patient's contaminated bills as > change. The worker didn't set off any alarms when he entered the plant > because you only pass through the portal monitors when you leave, not when > going in. > > Story #2 - The Stripping Site Vice President > > When I was a shift worker many moons ago at the Acme Nuclear Plant I > would look for the vapor plume coming off the cooling towers on my drive to > work. I could usually see it from miles away. The plume told me the > direction > the wind was blowing and how hard. More importantly (to me) if there was no > plume it meant the plant had shut down. Sometimes the plume would rise to > a point and flatten out as if hitting an invisible ceiling. On those days I > would > mentally check the clothing label on my shirt and slacks. Which brings me > to > the stripping site vice president... > > I was talking to a female coworker the other day about a meeting she had > with the site vice president at one of our plants. For our purposes, lets > call > him Mr. Burns. She arrived at his office at the agreed upon time and Mr. > Burns showed up late wearing a shirt and tie and a disposable paper > jumpsuit rolled down to the waist. "I lost my pants" grumbled Mr. Burns, > stating the obvious to my surprised co-worker before taking a seat behind > his > desk and starting the meeting as if no other explanation was needed. None > was (to someone who works at a nuclear plant). > > The personnel portal monitors I mentioned in Story #1 are highly sensitive > instruments. They are not set to alarm when they detect a lethal, or even > dangerous level of radioactivity but at a level that is simply higher than > normal background. They are calibrated to catch the unexpected. > > You and I are surrounded by radiation every day from cosmic radiation and > naturally occurring radioactivity from the ground. One of the primary > sources > of natural background radiation is Radon gas which is created as Uranium > decays on its way to becoming Lead. Radon is everywhere. You are sucking > in small amounts of it with every breath and Radon is believed to be the > second leading cause of lung cancer in the US after smoking (a distant > second). Normally when Radon seeps out of the ground it gets dispersed > evenly into the atmosphere by the wind. But on days the leading edge of a > warm front slides over the top of a cold front you have a temperature > inversion and things like smog and Radon get held close to the ground. In > addition, synthetic textiles tend to attract and hold Radon and its "decay > daughters" more than cotton and other natural fibers. If you walk into a > nuclear plant on a temperature inversion day when Radon concentrations are > going to be high while wearing synthetic blends or if you forgot to use > fabric > softener to eliminate static cling you are taking a chance you will be > going > home in a paper jumpsuit. It has nothing to do with the plant itself. > > Story #3 How to Turn Common Household Material > Into Federally Regulated Radioactive Waste Without Trying. > > Last September the San Onofre nuclear plant, which abuts Camp Pendleton > in California, was notified by a local metal recycler that a shipment sent > there > by the plant had tripped its radiation monitors and that the truck was > being > returned to the site. > > Let me explain some things. Like any home or business, a nuclear plant > generates waste streams. Most plants I know have recycling programs like > you probably have at your office. We have bins to recycle printer paper, > plastic, used batteries, etc. The standard stuff. But we also generate > waste in > the working areas of the plant that is, or could be, radioactively > contaminated. This waste is kept segregated from the "clean" waste like in > the offices. The contaminated waste ranges from barely contaminated to > waste that must be handled remotely. Not many facilities are licensed to > take > radwaste off our hands and they charge and arm and a leg so the industry > goes out of its way to minimize it. You know those reusable grocery > shopping > bags you see in places like Whole Earth Foods? The nuclear industry has > been using the concept for years. Any new parts to be installed in a > radiation > area are removed from their boxes and packaging and put into launderable > bags to minimize the radwaste. If practical, an effort is made to > decontaminate things like old metal parts, dollar bills and pants to below > the > federal limits to be "free released". Otherwise it becomes radwaste or if > you > are an activist or member of the press "dangerous radioactive waste". If > you > are the cynical type you might think there is a temptation to intentionally > sneak contaminated waste in with the normal waste to save costs but that > simply isn't the case. If caught there would be hell to pay from the public > and > politicians and the NRC would come down like flies on shit, not to mention > jail > time for those involved. Disposing of radwaste properly is expensive, but > the > cost of cheating would be way more expensive. It gets painful enough when > plants make honest mistakes concerning waste shipments. > > At San Onofre the source of the radioactivity turned out to be naturally > high > levels of Thorium in some left over ceramic floor tiles that had not even > been > brought inside the plant. Thorium is three times more abundant than > Uranium, which itself is as abundant as Tin and Silver. > > Which brings me to the concept of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials > (NORM). Almost everything in nature is radioactive to some extent > (including > you) but obviously not everything is treated as radioactive waste. As a > practical matter, the federal government exempts NORM from regulation. But > that doesn't mean all NORM is lower in radioactivity than all radwaste. The > granite used to build Grand Central Station and the US Capital building are > so radioactive they would have to be treated as radwaste if they weren't > NORM. The same for some high end granite kitchen countertops. Ditto some > coal plant fly ash. The nuclear power industry and hospitals occasionally > lobby to have the allowable levels increased to permit more waste to be > sent > to conventional landfills but this always generates a hue and cry in > opposition. Frankly this issue isn't one of the reasons I take blood > pressure > medicine but there are those who feel strongly on both sides. > > NEXT (if there is interest): "So the Site VP and I were standing in our > underwear when the delegation of state legislators arrived..." and "The day > I > caught the Health Physics foreman pouring dog food down the toilet." > > -- Peace Is Doable--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
