6. Safety, Security, Health and Non-proliferation
Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the safety, security, health and non-proliferation issues? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?
Disagree. The UK government has not considered radiation hormesis in its assessment of the risks of radiation exposure. Increasing low dose radiation exposure improves health.
http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Rad_hormesis.html
Low Doses of Radiation Reduce Risk In Vivo
http://www.pacificnuclear.org/pnc/2004-low-dose/08-Mitchel%20.pdf
The exclusion of these facts shows that the UK government's risk assessment criteria have been set to meet political objectives, not measurable health objectives. The criteria have been set to deflect the propaganda of groups who are adamantly opposed to nuclear power. The criteria are too stringent and unnecessarily increase the cost of nuclear power, much to the satisfaction of these opposition groups.
For example, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation should be conducting studies looking for the benefits of low dose radiation exposure and using these findings to promote widespread acceptance of fission sourced energy. Instead, they conduct studies looking for cancer and only increase public fear, no matter what they report. The whole approach is negative and unscientific.
Note that placing new reactors underground will improve safety, security, health, and non-proliferation factors. These kinds of solutions, and these new levels of safety, just are not possible with other technologies. Coal cannot be burned underground in the middle of a city, uranium can. This is extremely good news; it amounts to a revolutionary step in our standard of living. The UK government should educate the population about this advance.
The UK government should state clearly that safety is compromised by not using nuclear reactors. When reactors are not used then fossil fuels are consumed instead, releasing dangerous waste products.
The UK government believes that the regulatory framework does not provide a reason to prevent private investment. This is wrong. The regulatory framework causes intolerable delays, is subject to frivolous manipulation from pressure groups, and increases the cost of new nuclear plants. A regulatory framework based on scientific knowledge and a positive approach would result in a rush of investors. The primary factor preventing the widespread use of nuclear power is the crushing government oversight burden. This situation has been created by unrelenting and unreasonable lobbying from small groups who are making a living from their anti-nuclear campaigns. The UK government should take charge of the situation and reframe the discussion in a manner that exposes the whole truth about nuclear power, thereby neutralizing the propaganda of the lobbyists. The health and well being of the population requires energy, clean energy can only be made by fission, and the UK government should provide the confident leadership needed to reach these goals.
The regulatory framework needs to be changed so that new nuclear plants can be built faster.
Disagree. The UK government has not considered radiation hormesis in its assessment of the risks of radiation exposure. Increasing low dose radiation exposure improves health.
http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Rad_hormesis.html
Low Doses of Radiation Reduce Risk In Vivo
http://www.pacificnuclear.org/pnc/2004-low-dose/08-Mitchel%20.pdf
The exclusion of these facts shows that the UK government's risk assessment criteria have been set to meet political objectives, not measurable health objectives. The criteria have been set to deflect the propaganda of groups who are adamantly opposed to nuclear power. The criteria are too stringent and unnecessarily increase the cost of nuclear power, much to the satisfaction of these opposition groups.
For example, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation should be conducting studies looking for the benefits of low dose radiation exposure and using these findings to promote widespread acceptance of fission sourced energy. Instead, they conduct studies looking for cancer and only increase public fear, no matter what they report. The whole approach is negative and unscientific.
Note that placing new reactors underground will improve safety, security, health, and non-proliferation factors. These kinds of solutions, and these new levels of safety, just are not possible with other technologies. Coal cannot be burned underground in the middle of a city, uranium can. This is extremely good news; it amounts to a revolutionary step in our standard of living. The UK government should educate the population about this advance.
The UK government should state clearly that safety is compromised by not using nuclear reactors. When reactors are not used then fossil fuels are consumed instead, releasing dangerous waste products.
The UK government believes that the regulatory framework does not provide a reason to prevent private investment. This is wrong. The regulatory framework causes intolerable delays, is subject to frivolous manipulation from pressure groups, and increases the cost of new nuclear plants. A regulatory framework based on scientific knowledge and a positive approach would result in a rush of investors. The primary factor preventing the widespread use of nuclear power is the crushing government oversight burden. This situation has been created by unrelenting and unreasonable lobbying from small groups who are making a living from their anti-nuclear campaigns. The UK government should take charge of the situation and reframe the discussion in a manner that exposes the whole truth about nuclear power, thereby neutralizing the propaganda of the lobbyists. The health and well being of the population requires energy, clean energy can only be made by fission, and the UK government should provide the confident leadership needed to reach these goals.
The regulatory framework needs to be changed so that new nuclear plants can be built faster.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home