[ RadSafe ] FW: Horizon: Nuclear Nightmares

[Ruth Sponsler]

I don't have a reply regarding technical details of
internal vs. external doses, since this is complex and
depends on the individual element involved, its
biological half-life, which organs, as well as the
Q-factors. Discussion of this is entirely unnecessary,
however.

I do have a reply to the concluding statement in the
original piece from the anti-nuclear group:  QUOTE:
"Nuclear power stations cannot operate without
discharge licences, but the >scientific debate over
radiation risk has reached such a point that any
>decision to emit radioactivity will be subject to
legal challenge.  That's the point at which the drunks
will hit the pavement. UNQUOTE

This is an obvious threat of lawsuit.  It would be a
frivolous lawsuit, however, as it can be easily proven
to any judge that there is quite a lot of
radioactivity in nature - in fact, much more than a
nuclear power plant is ever allowed to emit.  This can
be proven using a simple discussion of natural
background radiation levels that involve external
exposure as well as internal deposition of nuclides
such as naturally occurring K-40 from food.

I would predict that any judge worth his salt would
throw this lawsuit out very quickly based on a simple
comparison of natural background radiation from rocks,
minerals, soil, potassium in food, and possibly radon
- with the very low levels that the power plant is
licensed to emit.  

~Ruth  

"

--- "Richard L. Hess" <lists at richardhess.com> wrote:

> I would appreciate a rebuttal to this charge about
> the failure of the 
> dose model for internal doses. I had become
> convinced that the LNT 
> approach was wrong, but now this group is claiming
> what? That the 
> internal dosage is even more sensitive than thought?
> 
> Dr. Cohen? Anyone?
> 
> I'm sorry if I get easily confused with this. You
> should see me 
> worrying about the friction and stick-slip of
> degrading magnetic tape 
> over fixed heads and guides -- I get even more
> confused when formulas 
> don't match what I'm seeing in the tape transfer lab
> <sigh>/<smile>.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Richard
> 
> At 08:52 AM 7/18/2006, Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX
> wrote:
> >All,
> >
> > >From the Low Level Radiation Campaign mailing
> list.
> >
> >Enjoy,
> >Jerry
> >________________________________
> >
> >The statements and opinions expressed herein are my
> responsibility; no
> >> >
> >The BBC documentary "Nuclear Nightmares" looks as
> if it will be
> >propaganda intended to soften us up for a new round
> of nuclear power
> >stations. We have raised this with the series
> producer and we shall be
> >watching to see if the programme or the series
> complies with the rules
> >of the Office of Communications. Rule 5.5. says 
> "Due impartiality on
> >matters of political or industrial controversy and
> matters relating to
> >current public policy must be preserved [...]  This
> may be achieved
> >within a programme or over a series of programmes
> taken as a whole."
> >
==============message truncated================== >
> >

>We don't feel worried by the UK Government's
announcement today. 
Nuclear
>power stations cannot operate without discharge
licences, but the
>scientific debate over radiation risk has reached
such a point that 
any
>decision to emit radioactivity will be subject to
legal challenge.
>That's the point at which the drunks will hit the
pavement.






>
>
>
>The Low Level Radiation Campaign has sent you this
email circular
>because you are on our database of people who are
concerned about low
>level radiation and health. If you do not want to
receive information
>from us please reply, putting "remove from LLRC" in
the subject line.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com