[ RadSafe ] Article Claims Millions at Risk due to Spent Fuel Pools

[ROY HERREN]

Roger, 
  After Fukajima is certainly seems as though when considering risk analysis that one must imagine the unimaginable.  You know that saying, "but what are the odds".  We need to figure all of the odds and weigh those odds against our tolerance for each type of disaster.  We also need to reexamine our reliance on the standard of a one in a million odds of acceptability.  It's possible that some events are so damaging that even that standard is unacceptable. 

  The odds of an entire pool going dry so that there is no cooling effect what so ever seems very remote,  however I would have also said the same about an up lifting of the sea floor by multiple meters.  If there is a take away here it's that the unimaginable event isn't necessarily an impossible event.  Food for thought!

Roy Herren

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 6/5/17, Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article Claims Millions at Risk due to Spent Fuel Pools
 To: "RADSAFE" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
 Date: Monday, June 5, 2017, 2:58 AM
 
 I don't think that this article is soundly
 based, but some big names have
 stepped forth in a related article
 https://www.facingsouth.org/2017/06/nuclear-regulators-flawed-analysis-leaves-millions-risk-radioactive-fires
 
 Roger Helbig
 _______________________________________________
 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