home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.environment:11306 alt.activism:16209
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!oracle!unrepliable!bounce
- From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
- Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.activism
- Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
- Message-ID: <1992Sep13.013845.9479@oracle.us.oracle.com>
- Date: 13 Sep 92 01:38:45 GMT
- References: <Greenpeace.1Sep1992.8am1@naughty-peahen.org> <1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com> <53130@dime.cs.umass.edu>
- Sender: usenet@oracle.us.oracle.com (Oracle News Poster)
- Organization: Oracle Corporation
- Lines: 84
- Nntp-Posting-Host: appseq
- X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
- at Oracle Corporation. The opinions expressed are those
- of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.
-
- In article <53130@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
- >In article <1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
- >>Gotta love Greenpeace propaganda. See below.
-
- >>In article <Greenpeace.1Sep1992.8am1@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
- >>>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
-
- >>>RADIOACTIVE SAND FROM SELLAFIELD PROVES NUCLEAR REPROCESSING IS
- >>>UNLAWFUL
-
- >>>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port
- >>>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press
- >>>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium.
-
- >>How contaminated is it? There is a big defference between detectable
- >>levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.
-
- >Really? What's the safe level of plutonomium contamination? Please
- >provide references.
-
- Can't do that until you define your terms... Please define "safe".
-
- >>>Sand from the shore
- >>>in the area around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in England.
- >>>Sand in which children play and families have their picnics.
-
- >>Note the brazen scare tactics.
-
- >If, in fact, public beaches are dangerously contaminated with plutonium,
- >then it would be rather wierd not be be alarmed.
-
- I certainly agree. Please present your evidence that public beaches
- are dangerously contaminated with plutonium. Since you made the
- original assertion I will also expect you to present us with a
- definition of the word "dangerously" in this context.
-
- >>>Many people have become ill with cancer in this region.
-
- >>Of course. Many people have become ill with cancer in every region.
- >>Note how the carefully avoid saying that radiation is the cause -
- >>being caught in blatant lies is embarrassing.
-
- >It is a matter of controversy in the scientific literature right now.
- >Check some back issues of Nature for details on the Sellafield cancer
- >controversy.
-
- Why should I bother? I am critiquing the Greenpeace press release,
- not attempting an analysis of the facts behind it.
-
- >>>With THORP the total emissions from
- >>>plants at Sellafield will increase by 1,000 per cent.
-
- >>1000 per cent is much scarier than 10 times, even though 10 times is
- >>clearer. And so what? If current levels are a million times less
- >>than regulatory limits who cares about a ten times increase?
-
- >Apparently you don't know anything at all about the Sellafield plant.
- >The plant features a pipe which has been pouring Pu wastes into the
- >Irish sea for some decades. "Regulatory limits" are not very strict.
-
- So? Note that you do not address my point. How much Pu is in these
- "Pu wastes"?
-
- >>>Up to 27.5 million curies of radioactivity will then be
- >>>released annually. This may be compared with
- >>>the approximately 50 million curies which, according to
- >>>official data, were released at Chernobyl during the
- >>>accident.
-
- >>Now why do I think that something in that paragraph smells fishy?
-
- >Beats me. Got something more substantive to say?
-
- Well, if you are really that unimaginative I will expand on the issue.
- The implication is that they are planning a facility that will release
- half as much radiation as Chernobyl every year in the course of
- normal operation. Within a few years that would render an enormous
- area totally unfit for human habitation. That kind of disaster leads
- to lynch mobs, which governments usually attempt to avoid. When
- people accuse a government of knowingly courting such a disaster they
- are usually lying.
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- I am not an official Oracle spokesman. I speak for myself and no one else.
-