[ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Thu Aug 27 14:13:32 CDT 2009

Hi Mike:

I understand your rejection of conservative assumptions.

I re-wrote a large portion of the GENII codes in my study of the Alamosa
Basin.  The estimates of transfer coefficients e.g. water to soil; soil to
plant; plant to animal; etc. I believe are quite conservative giving rise to
a likely overestimate in dose.  Since I had no budget to actually measure
the radium distribution in crops (potatoes, carrots, alfalfa, hay, wheat,
etc.) and vertical distribution of radium / uranium in agricultural soils,
or measure the accumulated radium in the control group, the guesses remain
just guesses based on measurements of groundwater geochemistry and using the
transfer coefficients / soil buildup to estimate ultimate dose in GENII.

Looking at other data in similar geological settings e.g. data from
Kazakhstan involving a single event in which sheep / horse herders broke the
well head of a uranium exploration well to allow free-flowing, artesian
water from uranium deposits to provide drinking water for livestock.
Estimates of soil retention from measured transects suggest that vertical
redistribution of uranium w.r.t. time, is significantly different than the
published values (gosh, who would have thunk!).  In the Kazakh data, the
uranium seems to mobilize very rapidly through the soil profile making it
not very available for uptake into crops.  The radium, as expected is
retained and concentrated in the upper soil zone.

The difference between a model and the "real thing" can be very significant.

But in cases like the WIPP, a "worst case" intrusion scenario including
overpressured pockets below the repository was also used. While it is not
unlikely that the repository will be drilled in some distant future, and it
happens that there are overpressured pockets in the Delaware Basin, the
joint probability of both features / events (remembering FEPS - Features,
Events & Processes) occurring are rather remote.

Just thinking!

Dan ii
--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
7 Likely Place
Santa Fe, NM 87508-5938
+33.(0).6.47.86.05.25 (Mobile - France)
+33.(0).9.70.44.04.03 (Skype - France)
+1-505-240-6872 (Skype - New Mexico) 
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 10:58
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Hi, Franz.  

There is a certain freedom in not having any desire to climb further up the
career ladder:  I look at issues like an engineer, not a manager.

I believe that it is important to consider stochastic effects when doing
risk analysis.  I also believe that sometimes the quality of the data will
never (or at least, not in soon enough) be good enough to give reliable
numbers, so sometimes you have go with a qualitative "feel".  

I reject, however, the common tactic of using stochastic "calculations"
using "conservative" assumptions, to drive the result so as to support the
desired outcome.  Some of the assumptions I've seen used by one side or the
other on different issues include (1) civilization collapsing, the art of
reading lost, and even legends about Hanford lost, within the next 200
years, (2) The person most effected by a facility discharging radioactive
material to the sewer is getting ALL of his drinking water from that sewer
outfall (NOT, mind you, just the sewer downstream at the next manhole) and
(3) The Inland Sea will reform, connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of
Mexico.  The recent stipulation that Canada's deep geologic repository must
be able to handle a two kilometer ice sheet on top of it; an event that
causes ALL of the people of the region to migrate south and ends Canada as a
country, is another example.  

As a rule, I am far less concerned about hypothetical people in the distant
future doing something stupid than I am about real people, with real
families, here now, trying to get what most people throughout history have
wanted; To live their lives free from want and fear, to see their children
grow to honorable, productive adulthood, and to hold their get to hold their
grandchildren before they die.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Franz Schönhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer at chello.at] 
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:16 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Mike,

I gratulate you for your boldness to distribute your opinion, which might be
contrary to "mainstream US politics", but surprisingly not to RADSAFE
comments. 

You very well described the difference of people being killed immediately
and people killed "probably" decades later, which never was and still is not
sure because there is a high statistical possibility that they will survive
many decades. 

How should the stochastic effects be determined?  

I fully agree that the question of landmines is the by far more important
question referring to damage - loosing live, limbs, sight etc. How can this
be compared to any hypothetical(!!!) DU damage?????? 

Why are always nuclear dangers put forward, when there are by far more
dangers present by coventional threats????????

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 20:31
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Dan,

Please do not take anything in my post as minimizing the effects, short or
long term, of landmines, as that certainly was not my intention.
Clearly, something that kills and injures immediately has HUGE long term
effects (indeed, I do not discount the impact of fragments of DU in the
bodies of people caught in near-misses, though that is not the focus of the
anti DU crowd).  When someone looses a limb to a mine the effect echoes
through their life, and the lives of any children they may have, and all who
care for them.  In intention was to point out that the immediate and acute
aspects of landmine should make them a higher priority than DU for anyone
who is prioritizing hazards based on risk, rather than some other criteria
(like the US Military can be blamed).

Landmines were bad enough when they were (mostly) restricted to military
organizations using them against other military organization.  For decades,
however, they have been used more and more randomly, often without apparent
interest in what "side" of a conflict the person eventually sets it off
might be on.  I believe that the US should support the ban on landmines on
moral and practical grounds, either of which is sufficient. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:20 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Dear Mike:

Anecdotal Experience on Long-term Effects of Mines and IEDs: 

Having had friends die or become re-injured from their wounds 2-3 decades
following injury by mines, I would say that the effects are long-term as
well. As shrapnel fragments dislodge from bone, they have a tendency to
re-emerge with resulting injury to soft tissue.  One lost a leg years later
when a bony growth in his femur around a piece of shrapnel caused it to
break. Another died from peritonitis when his colon was cut by a piece of
shrapnel dislodged from his pelvis. Another was more benign when a fragment
emerged from his foot while he was taking a shower.  All suffered emotional
and psychological scarring as a result of their injuries.

My next-door neighbor in France lost both legs and suffered grievous bodily
injury while attempting to disarm a mine intended only to cause mayhem among
people in a village in Iraq.  He was, of course, wearing full body armor.
After 15 reconstructive surgeries and 4 years hence, he still faces
significant risks from the several fragments still in his body.  His job in
Iraq as part of the French military presence was to remove mines and IEDs
intended to kill and maim civilians. These devices were set by Iraqi
militias with no regard to the rules of war and intended only as instruments
of terror.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
7 Likely Place
Santa Fe, NM 87508-5938
+33.(0).6.47.86.05.25 (Mobile - France)
+33.(0).9.70.44.04.03 (Skype - France)
+1-505-240-6872 (Skype - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:18
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Between landmines and DU, the landmines are clearly the higher risk issue.
The effects are near term and acute, as opposed to long term and chronic
(discounting the nearly magical claims put forward by the anti-DU crowd).
DU is either in chunks, which are easy to find and safe to clean up, or
combustion products, which become more dispersed over time, decreasing in
concentration, and hence risk.  Landmines are often intentionally difficult
to find and dangerous to remove.  It is true that the activity of the DU
will remain constant on any timescale useful for planning, and landmines
will decrease in number by being cleared, set off, and chemical
deterioration, but it is entirely possible that mines will still be killing
and maiming people in Iraq 50 years from now.  

On the other hand, none of the landmines were set by the US Military (with
possible exception around some of the bases, in fields designed to be
removed as part of the eventual pull out).  For many people, this makes
landmines in Iraq of no interest. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:34 AM
To: maurysis at peoplepc.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

Hi John,

You are quite right that Maury's referenced article did not support his
claim of zealots avidly blocking new nuclear power plants.  That article was
really an Iranian DU propaganda piece meant to create social guilt in the US
for political leverage.

But Maury's implied claim is nevertheless accurate.  If you need other
articles that do support his claim, I'll be happy to post a few.  

Now that we've tidied up that point, can you please clarify your use of the
phrase "uncontroversial and undeniable".  It seems silly to ask, but are you
in fact refering to the article cited by Maury, the Iranian propaganda
piece?  If so, do you really think the article is "uncontroversial and
undeniable"?

Thanks,
-Gary
--------------------------------
Gary Isenhower, M.S.
Trinity Physics Consulting
713-690-3020

On 25 Aug 2009 at 6:14, john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com wrote:

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

Well, I followed the link to see if I could get a look at those avid new
nuclear plant blockers, and I saw exactly nada. Just some relatively old
stuff about how all the DU ordnance loosed on Iraq is still a problem, with
a kicker toward the end noting that Iraq still has a lot of land mines
strewn about.

How, exactly do you make the leap from these uncontroversial and undeniable
points of fact to "avidly blocking new nuclear power plants?"

In fact, there was no connection to nuclear power in the article at all
until you just made one. I'm not sure that helps the cause.

John Gumnick, CHP
RP Tech Manager
Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Station
Phone: 815-415-2703
john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Maury Siskel Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:13 AM To:
radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Anti-nuclear zealots over the globe.

If any think anti-nuclear zealotry has diminished or died, rest assured;
they are alive, well, and avidly blocking new nuclear power plants over the
globe. Maury&Dog  (Maury Siskel
maurysis at peoplepc.com)

===========================
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=104356&sectionid=351020201

"Radioactive US weapons taking toll in Iraq Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:14:18 GMT

Years after the US attacks on Iraq, people in the Persian Gulf state are
suffering form the consequences of radioactive contamination caused by the
use of depleted uranium.

Iraq's Environment Minister, Narmin Othman Hasan, said Monday that depleted
Uranium (DU) weapons used by US-led troops against Iraq during the1991
Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion still blight the country.

Othman Hasan said the use of super-tough weapons by the US-led forces had a
devastating impact on the nation and has become a serious environmental
challenge since they have contaminated several parts of the country. ..."
---------------snipped, see link for complete
article------------ _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list