🚀 go-pugleaf

Carl Dean wrote:
> 
> > Having spent some time working at and with the people scientists and
> > technicians at Chernobyl let me assure you that the fear of all things
> > radioactive - fuel rods, naturally occurring radioactive material, smoke
> > detectors, et al -  is now almost infused in our DNA - and it took only
> > 50+ years - amazing how the human species adapts even to gross terror.
> >
> > Peter MacDowell
> >
> You're paranoid of anything that's radioactive - even naturally occurring
> radioactive ore (stated above).  This is not a sound argument.  Do you
> believe that people should be completely isolated from anything
> radioactive?  You would then have to remove all of the (naturally
> occurring) radioactive ore and gas from the earth and never venture
> outdoors into the sunlight.  Sounds pretty silly to me.
> 
> Japan has the most reason to fear nuclear power, since it was bombed by two
> nuclear weapons.  However, it has warmly embraced nuclear power and is
> fully utilizing it.  If they aren't afraid of it, then why should anyone
> else be?
> 
> Carl

Carl,

As a radiation safety officer with a lot of experience believe me I am 
well aware of the difference between exposure and contamination. Besides 
that I am now nearing the age where I have a cell division about once 
every 3 weeks.

But to support that this contention sounds "pretty silly" to you - in 
1983 the insurance and re-insurance industry adopted the "Radioactive 
Matter Exclusion Endorsement" for all Comprehensive General Liability 
(CGL) policies.  The endorsement states, and I quote -

	This policy does not apply to:
	
	"Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" arising out of the actual, 
	alledged or threatened exposure of person(s) or property to any 
	radioactive matter.

That is not paranoia, that is one hundred percent risk avoidance - Your 
basis for what constitutes a sound argument on this topic was made moot 
some 4 years ago when the insurance industry - utilizing as a basis of 
the exclusion caveat a natural law of science (given that 95% of all 
matter in the universe is radioactive)- sorry about that but this is the 
reality of economic assessment.

I gave a paper last year to the Health Physics Society Annual Meeting and 
have had lengthy discussions with the NRC, EPA, reinsurance/insurance 
companies, etc. I'd be pleased to send you a copy of the paper as well as 
the correspondence with NRC/EPA.

On the NORM issue, if you think that that is also silly you might want to 
check with the oil companies who have, in the past 5 years, paid out in 
excess of $800,000,000 for plaintiff suits for NORM contamination - 
personal injury and bodily harm - Chevron is the big loser in this area.

If you need other substantiating facts and documents let me know.

Regards,

Peter MacDowell