From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:38:45 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
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.
Newsgroups: sci.environment