🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter MacDowell wrote:
> 
> 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


FORGIVE THE TYPOGRAPHIC ERROR - THAT SHOULD BE 1993-94 NOT ***1983***.

sINCE THIS HAS ALREADY GONE OUT - i'LL JUST FOOTNOTE IT.