Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site teldata.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac
From: tac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Old King Coal
Message-ID: <311@teldata.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Apr-84 13:06:28 EST
Article-I.D.: teldata.311
Posted: Tue Apr 17 13:06:28 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Apr-84 01:08:15 EST
References: <461@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Organization: Teltone Corp., Kirkland, WA
Lines: 55

, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)

>>  >..I don't think that it's reasonable to assign statistics like
>>  >"one-in-a-billion" to the possibility of a reactor being hit by an
>>  >H-bomb..."

Isn't anyone out there familiar with nuclear physics?  Radioactive materials
are not at all like TNT or other explosives.  If an H-bomb (or A- or any
other letter bomb) hits a reactor the size of the explosion will not be
any different from the same bomb hitting sand.  Nuclear materials are not
shock-volitile.  The H-bomb will go off and scatter the materials of the
plant it blows up over a large space, but unless it goes off in the core
of the reactor the reaction materials will not "join" in the explosion.
The area over which this radioactive material will be spread is the same
as would be radioactive from the bomb anyway.  20000 years from now someone
could complain because all of the other bomb craters were no longer hot but
this one was still warm, no other difference would exist!
If it does go off in the reactor (terrorists--don't blame the type of plant
on them) it would still have to be of a similar type of material to make
any sizable impression on the output.  I think a little study of the subject
at a text book level is in order for all sides in this debate!!!

>>  
>>  Surely, statistics exist on the number of coal-related (black-lung,
>>  emphysema, cancer [estimates?], mine-accidents) deaths vs. the number of
>>  nuclear-related deaths (mine accidents, cancer [estimates?]).  Does
>>  anyone out there know where to look these up?  Unbiased references
>>  are preferred, of course, if that is possible.

You might try insurance companies.  If they will not give you the actual
facts, just ask for the rates to insure yourself while working in the
relevant industry.  Compare the rates and you will find the more dangerous
job.

>>  
>>  It is unlikely that I'll be able to get ahold of an in-house paper
>>  written at Cornell University, so perhaps Mr. White would be
>>  willing to produce some of Dr. Pohl's arguments for us.  At
>>  present, I am still of the opinion that coal is much more dangerous
>>  than nuclear power.

Yes, please present some facts.

>>  
>>  Over to you, Martin.
>>  
>>  Sam Hall, UCB
>>  ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
>>  

	    From the Soapbox of
	    Tom Condon     {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}

	    A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.