Re: still our own worst enemy

[Keith Welch <welch@jlab.org>]

Sandy, I for one agree completely with you.  It seems to me that some of
the responders didn't get your point.  
Surveying for something that "could possibly" be there to show folks
that it's not, is one thing.  Surveying for something that we know
"can't" be there is quite another.

If someone comes to you, concerned that they've gotten a large radiation
dose from working around x-ray machines, would you try to allay their
fears by giving them a whole body frisk?  If my boss directed me to do
that, I think I'd tell him to do it himself, and start looking for a new
boss :).

I agree that it does more harm than good by perpetuating misconceptions
and fears of things that don't exist.  We'd make better use of our
energy by providing information explaining the nature of the situation,
and why it is that we're NOT looking for something.

I did read a few news articles after the accident that actually had the
nature of the JCO event fairly accurately described.  It seems that
because that didn't satisfy the media hunger for something a little more
scary, slowly reports started coming out that indicated there could have
been a "plume" or contamination "blowout" or something -  is it possible
that these reports were the result of people being seen "looking for it
when they knew it wasn't there", thereby giving the false impression
that it could be there?

Now, having said all that, I must admit that because of the news reports
I read (the blown out roof), I have been wondering if in fact it there
was some potential for any significant releases from the event.  Can
someone set me straight on that?


Sandy Perle wrote:
 
> I attended a workshop last evening on the JCO criticality accident 
> and criticality accidents in general. During the presentation several 
> items caught my eye, and more importantly, my disdain. It was pointed 
> out that the JCO facility where the accident took place was now being 
> shielded for high energy photons. This is being done AFTER the 
> accident, and where there is no current exposure outside the 
> facility. We were also told that many of the fields and crops in the 
> area were being surveyed, although the criticality accident involved 
> no off-site particulate type release, that could cause ground 
> contamination. When asked why this was being done, it was discussed 
> that this made the public "feel better" and they would be happy that 
> appropriate actions were being taken.
> 
> It was also discussed that many states here also monitored for 
> radioactive plumes to ensure that there was no potential public risk. 
> Granted, this was done initially when the media informed everyone, 
> with pictures of the blown out roof, that there was a release taking 
> place. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when the 
> monitoring continued after it was known that all that was involved, 
> was a criticality accident, where the only risk to the public was 
> from direct radiation, and only out to a radius of approximately 300 
> meters.
> 
> The discussion went further, where it was stated that if this 
> accident occurred here in the USA at a DOE facility, that we too 
> would initiate ground and crop surveys, vehicle surveys etc, to make 
> the public "feel good" that appropriate actions are being taken. 
> 
> If we, radiation specialists, take these kinds of unnecessary action, 
> simply to make the public feel better, we are more at fault to 
> promote the mis-information about radiation accidents, radiation 
> exposure and radiation risks, than we can ever blame any other 
> factor. To do so is unethical, and only causes further damage to what 
> we scientists know as fact, and allows emotions to dictate policy 
> even further. In the end, the public, in the USA, will be no more pro-
> nuclear by these actions being taken, compared to no actions being 
> taken. We ARE our own worse enemy. Time for a Sanity Check!
> 
--
Keith Welch
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA
welch@jlab.org
Ph: (757)269-7212
FAX:(757)269-5048
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html