Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!psuvax!burdvax!sjuvax!bbanerje
From: bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Nuclear power reduces radioactivity
Message-ID: <282@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-May-84 18:08:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.282
Posted: Thu May  3 18:08:27 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 9-May-84 02:45:13 EDT
References: <2734@azure.UUCP>
Organization: Saint Josephs Univ. Phila., Pa.
Lines: 34


>> uranium ore.  If someone can cite a study that compares ALL the
>> radioactivity in uranium ore to ALL the radioactivity in coal, I'd like
>> to see it.  If it can be shown that uranium ore is less than 20 times
>> as radioactive as coal, only then will I believe that the coal fuel
>> cycle releases more radiation per KWH than the nuclear fuel cycle.  And

I've been sort of glancing at this debate with a sort of
semi-detachment.  One thing that apparently hasn't occurred to all the
self-proclaimed experts throwing facts around.  Has anyone thought of
actually *measuring* the radioactivity of coal against that of
Uranium?  I'm sure that someone out there must have the apparatus
(Geiger Counter? Gold leaf electroscope?) and access to the required
material.  Hell, even I can come up with a lump of anthracite, and I
had a mineral kit bought from a toy store in when I was a kid, which
contained a sample of pitchblende.

I wish that all these "experts" would consider actually *TESTING* their
theory before they made various bombastic statements (both pro and
con).  Second and third source references don't make the grade.  I
could probably find some Turkey to quote on any asinine view ever
conceived.

So, why don't I do it?  Answer - I'm really not interested in this
debate... but then again, I'm not posting on it either.

Please send me flames, I love mail.

"liberal, but believe in nuclear energy"
-- 


				Binayak Banerjee
		{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje