From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:17:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp
(Michael Friedman) wrote:
> 
> Gotta love Greenpeace propaganda.  See below.

Gotta love Friedman's 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.

Damn good question.  Friedman does not know the answer, but everything in
his post assumes, without the slightest basis, that the levels are not
dangerous.  How very scientific, Mikey.

> >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.

Apparently they are brazen scare tactics just because Friedman says so,
since he shows no evidence that the radiation is not dangerous.

> >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.

Of course, if it turned out that the levels are dangerous, then there are
no blatant lies (except Friedman's).

> >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?

What if they are not a million times less than regulatory limits?

> >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 the shit out of me.

> >  The sand Greenpeace is today presenting to the press and 
> >media proves that reprocessing in England contradicts the 
> >German Atomic Energy Act.  This stipulates "harmless 
> >recycling" in keeping with "state-of-the-art science and 
> >technology".  Given these emissions and contamination there can 
> >be no talk of "harmless recycling". 
> 
> Why not?  The Greenpeace press release doen't even mention any hint of
> harm occurring.

Mikey, if you're going to insist that the levels are harmless you have to
give us a clue of what the levels ARE.  If you can't do that, then you're
just bloviating, aren't you?

> >  Scientists from Bremen University conducting gamma- 
> >spectrometric analyses detected in the samples Greenpeace 
> >took at Sellafield in May up to 9,435 becquerels of caesium 137 
> >and 8,520 becquerels of americium 241 per kilogramme of earth.  
> >Their alpha-spectrometric analyses revealed up to 
> >6,747 becquerels of plutonium 239/40.  These analyses were 
> >made on the basis of the samples' weight when wet.  
> 
> Sounds scary, no?  But how much is that compared to normal background
> levels?

Damn fine question.  Do you know the answer?  Bet you don't.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3672 sci.environment:11289