[ RadSafe ] Fukushima and the Pacific - some calculations

[Maury]

Bill, your points are well taken, but then in your view, what are the 
"real issues"? And could you add at least some response to whatever you 
consider to be the "real issues"?

Additionally, in my opinion, acceptance of nuclear power depends upon 
other variables than mere faith in some experts.  Why the allegations of 
'worthless', 'missed points', 'flunked', 'unwillingness to face ...'?  
What have you added to resolve these supposed failings?  I hope you will 
promote the discussion of the issues by adding your information.
Best,
Maury&Dog   [MaurySiskel   maurysis at peoplepc.com]
===================================================

On 1/6/2014 1:08 PM, William Lipton wrote:
> 2 concerns:
>
> (1) Having performed offsite dose calculations, I just wish it were that
> simplistic.  I'm reminded of the initial offsite dose calculations for the
> early bomb tests.  Everyone thought that I-131 would not be a problem - its
> half life is only 8 days.  No one predicted its rapid travel through the
> grass - cow - milk - child thyroid pathway.  While I-131 is probably not
> the problem, here, you have not looked at other potential problems, e.g.,
> the TRU, the Sr-90, and the I-129.  Basically, since you don't know what
> you don't know, these simplistic "evaluations" are, at best, worthless, and
> can be misleading.
>
> (2) If the purpose of these "evaluations" is to calm public fears about
> Fukushima and nuclear power, you're completely missing the point.  Public
> acceptance of nuclear power depends on whether the "experts" can be trusted
> to safely manage the technology.  So far, we've flunked, and the only thing
> such simplistic calculations support is an unwillingness to face the real
> issues.
>
> Bill Lipton
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Curies forever.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM, KARAM, PHILIP<PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org>wrote:
>
>> Good point - but even if we assume that the spent fuel pools contain ten
>> times the radionuclide inventory of the three operating reactors we're
>> still safe by many orders of magnitude.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
>> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Davidson
>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:24 PM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fukushima and the Pacific - some calculations
>>
>> I don't think that the conclusion would change but the inventory went
>> beyond the cores in the reactors.  for completeness, we should consider
>> adding additional cores from the SFPs since they lost spent fuel cooling
>> and some of the content from those spent cores should be added.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:18 PM, KARAM, PHILIP<PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org
>>> wrote:
>>> Correct. In reality the radioactivity will not mix instantly and
>>> uniformly, but by the time it reaches the West Coast it will be fairly
>>>
----------------------------------snipped------------------------------