[ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem

[William Lipton]

In case you haven't heard it, before:  "It's not about dose, it's about
trust."  The citizens would not accept the message from the experts:
"Trust me, this won't hurt a bit."  I don't blame them.

Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, THOMAS POTTER <pottert at starpower.net>wrote:

> The concern expressed by the good citizens of Long Island (whose trust of
> anything nuclear had vanished long before the Brookhaven flap, and could
> hardly have been reduced further by anything Brookhaven might have done)
> about the H-3 leakage from Brookhaven is entirely appropriate. It should
> not have happened, and, given that it did happen, some corrective action
> was warranted.
>
> But why not some thoughtful concern about what might be the most
> appropriate course of corrective action? (Are we bound by some law of man
> or nature to have and act on only one concern, to the exclusion of all
> other related concerns?) How does the small, but actual exposure of the
> good citizens of Tennessee to this H-3 in the name of preventing unlikely
> potential small exposure of the good citizens of Long Island make sense to
> anyone, including the good citizens of Long Island, who certainly would not
> have put up with it themselves?
>
> There is much to be said for the inclusion of the public in decisions of
> this kind. They are among the stakeholders. But the stakeholders who won
> this battle were holding the long, wooden, sharp-pointed variety.
>
> Tom Potter
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:58:23 -0500
> >From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem
> >To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>,         "The International
> Radiation
> >       Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> >       <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >Message-ID:
> >       <
> CAJODVEHO_ZNZECsUr54nuEHMSvdYtBBE2RT5ihXihcfnt1Sw2g at mail.gmail.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> >I am more disturbed by the fact that BNL management allowed the fuel pool
> >of the High Flux Beam Reactor to leak into the aquifer for as long as 12
> >years before discovery.   Despite promising to install monitoring wells in
> >1994, Brookhaven management delayed the installations.  Later monitoring
> >showed tritium levels up to 32 times federal drinking water standards.
> >
> >As the GAO Report<
> http://www.powerreactorrp.com/References/Groundwater/GAO_Brookhaven.pdf
> >states:
> >"Brookhaven's delay in installing the monitoring wells raised serious
> >concerns in the Long Island community about
> >(1) the laboratory's abiity to take seriously its responsibilities for the
> >environment and for human health and safety and (2) DOE's competence as an
> >overseer of the laboratory's activities."
> >
> >While shipment of the water for disposal was not technically necessary, I
> >don't blame the population and elected officials for their distrust of
> this
> >explanation, since previous DOE assurances of adequate monitoring were
> >wrong.
> >
> >Bill Lipton
> >It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> >
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Previously, on radsafe, the BNL tritium problem was discussed and, as I
> >> recall,
> >> it was shown that in no way was it a public health problem. In fact,
> there
> >> is no
> >> way that release of tritium to the environment could, in general, cause
> a
> >> significant health problem . Given this situation, I am disturbed that
> so
> >> much
> >> of my tax money has been squandered on a project that is little more
> than
> >> "show
> >> business". Given the technological ignorance of the news media, couldn't
> >> the DOE
> >> find a much cheaper way to assuage the concerns of a technologically
> >> ignorant
> >> public than shipping water to Oak Ridge?
> >>
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Message: 7
> >Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:26:10 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Ahmad Al-Ani <ahmadalanimail at yahoo.com>
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] A non-solution for a non-problem
> >To: jjcohen at prodigy.net, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> >Message-ID:
> >       <1327994770.41788.yint-ygo-j2me at web111715.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 8:18 AM AST Jerry Cohen wrote:
> >
> >>Bill
> >>OK, so  distrust is the problem, rather than a genuine health threat.
> Now that
> >>Long Island groundwater has been shipped to Tennessee. Does the public
> now have
> >>confidence in BNL, DOE, or nuclear energy in general. Just what did we
> get for
> >>the tax money spent?  Jerry
> >>
> >
> >
> >A stern reminder to the decision makers in the nuclear industry that when
> an organization agrees on something subject to public protest, they better
> fulfill the promise.
> >
> >BNL could have saved a lot more of the tax money, and save themselves the
> negative PR by implementing the agreed monitoring systems, even if it was
> not necessary from health perspective.
> >
> >Ahmad
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>