Re: A dose of reality, continued

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

Sandy Perle wrote:

> 
> I personally would like to see more dialogue to the pros and cons.
> We've seen a little, but not nearly enough to convince me one way
> or the other.


I agree with everything you said. This list is becoming far to
uncivil for my tastes.  And this lawyer fellow certainly wouldn't be
the first guy to successfully cross disciplines.  Certainly his
opinions are worthy of serious consideration.

Here are my concerns.  I was at TMI from shortly after the accident
until startup of Unit 1.  While not involved directly in the KI
debate there, I did have a catbird seat from which to watch what was
happening.  Secondly, I've served off and on over the last 15 years
as the county emergency management RSO.  I've been involved in the
decision making process both for power plant drills (we're inside
two EPZs, Sequoyah and Watts Bar) and real events.  I'm the only
person to hold this position who has ANY radiological experience -
my predecessor was a high school chemistry teacher.

During a crisis (or even for long term events), decisions based on
rational science are seldom made.  Political considerations,
overreaching recommendations by over-eager staff and how it will
look in the media tend to predominate the decisionmaking process. 
The little hard evidence that makes it to the decisionmakers tends
to be highly distorted by passing through multiple hands.  Given
that, we have to assume that protective measures will be invoked
either too early or unnecessarily.  We must then look at the results
of these measures.  

I've had standing-on-the-table-screaming-at-each-other debates over
what point in the emergency plan to start an evacuation.  Evacuation
is known to hurt and kill people, damage their property and cost
them money.  The only people hurt at TMI were the one(s) involved in
traffic wrecks.  I bought my apartment building in Royalton from a
guy who had to dump it because of the financial harm he suffered
when the concrete crew pouring a slab and wall was forced to
evacuate mid-pour.  There was real, tangible damage done to that guy
as opposed to theoretical or statistical harm.  I believe that we
have the duty NOT to do harm whenever possible.  Early evacuation
tends to be popular with the politicians because it is tangible
evidence that they're "doing something".  "Watchful waiting" tends
to not fit that bill.  Given the politicians' propensity to "do
something", I firmly believe in limiting the tools they have to do
it with.

I'm afraid stockpiling and putting under local control KI would
result in the same situation.  We know that a certain proportion of
the population reacts adversely to KI.  Therefore the distribution
of KI to a population can be predicted to harm or kill a few
people.  If the distribution is likely to occur needlessly, then it
is more likely that the stockpiling of KI will do more harm to
people than it would help.  

The logistics of distribution have to be considered too.  Do you
stockpile them in a warehouse or do you mail 'em out to all
households inside the EPZ or whatever?  That was a major debate
during TMI-1 restart hearings.  If KI is pre-distributed, we know
that a certain number of people will panic at any mention of an
event at a NP and will gobble the KI.  Some portion of those people
will be harmed by it.  If we stockpile, then the mad, hysterical
rush to get the stuff when the authorities decide to distribute will
also harm people (car wrecks, fights, etc).

One can easily conclude therefore, that KI carries a very high human
cost and therefore the impetus for distribution has to be high. Is
that impetus there?  I don't believe so.  TMI taught us that during
a core melt accident, what I that does get released will very
quickly either plate out onto cold surfaces or remain in solution. 
This is one of those common sense basic chemistry things that got
forgotten in the process of planning for a design basis accident. 
Second, I'm of the school of thought that a credible accident can't
be much worse than TMI.  After all, the core was left totally
uncovered for nearly a day.  Whatever potential for core melt had
time to occur.  I have a hard time imagining an event in which there
would be much more core damage than TMI.  About the only thing would
be for the accident to have happened to a high burnup core.  Even
then, the core I inventory wouldn't be that much higher than at TMI.
Given the near incredibility of a major accident, the possibility of
large scale I release is so low as to also approach the incredible.

So.  If it is accepted that a worse-than-TMI accident is incredible,
then it follows that a widespread I release is similarly
incredible.  Given that on one hand and the high probability of
harming people with any KI scenario, it becomes easy not to
distribute or stockpile KI.

John

-- 
John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~johngd/
Neon John's Custom Neon
Cleveland, TN
"Bendin' Glass 'n Passin' Gas"
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html