Re: background vs man-made emmissions

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

Dear Norman,

There is nothing to fire from my person. I simply want to answer your
comments "sine ira et studio" without anger and offences. In the course of
exchange of opinions I hope that you got the impression that "we" are not
the devils trying to destroy our civilisation because of profit oriented
business, that "we" do not hide surveillance results, that "we"  have
thought very carefully about the possible effects of emissions from nuclear
power plants as well as of naturally occurring radionuclides and
environmental doses. "We" have done so much research, which is openly
accessible, which has been published and can be retrieved by anybody who is
interested and wants to spend a few minutes or probably hours to recieve
the information. Nothing is secret, you just have to ask for it and find
out who can give you the answer. I hope it is excusable that your US
agencies do not advertise in all newspapers the most recent results for the
environmental surveillance of all US nuclear power plants......


At 13:09 29.04.2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Sandy, and others: according to the Tooth people, when asked the "denver"
>question::
>
>> Simple answer: comparing background vs. reactor emissions is apples vs.
>> oranges.

No it is not. The possible effect of ionizing radiation depends on the
gamma-rays emitted when talking about external dose - and whether the
gamma-rays origin from natural or artificial radionuclides is all the same,
especially if they have similar energies. The natural radiation environment
is much higher than from any possible artificial source excluding an
emission caused by an accident, just thinking of K-40, naturally occuring
radionuclides like Uranium, radium, radon etc. Considering incorporation of
radionuclides for instance from inhalation it is the same for the lung
tissue, whether the alphas originate from Pu-239 or Rn-222 or from the
progeny of the naturally occurring Rn-222, except that natural Rn-222 and
its progeny are present in the environment in activity concentrations
higher by many orders of magnitude. 

>>
>> Background
>> - is made up of mostly long-lived products

This is not true. Rn-222 is the by far most important radionuclide in
"background", its halflife is 3.8 days!

>> - generally disperses throughout soft tissues
>> - is something that humans have become accustomed to over millions of
years.

This is not true. Have humans become accustomed to the alphas of Rn-222 and
the progeny of it and can they distinguish it from the alphas of similar
energy from for instance plutonium - which by the way is not emitted by
nuclear power plants? Then we could forget about the possible impact of
Rn-222 in lung cancer. This would be an unacceptable downplay of natural
radionuclides and their possible impact on the radiation dose to humans. If
humans have been accustomed to K-40 gamma- and beta-emissions, how can they
distinguish it from the gamma- and beta rays from Cs-137 and I-131 of very
similar energies?




>> Reactor emissions
>> - is made up of both long-lived AND short-lived products

as is the case for naturally occuring radionuclides!!!


>> - does different things to the body (attacks thyroid cells, attacks
bone/bone
>> marrow cells)

I-131 is concentrated without doubt on the thyroid, on the other hand it is
used to cure thyroid cancer. As explained above the effect on the lung of
inhaled acitivities of Pu-239, Rn-222 plus progeny etc. is the same.

>> - is very new, only since 1945

As I pointed out above, for instance alpha-emitters have been present since
millions of years.


>>
>> Thus, health effects of each will be different.
>>

There are differences of organs where radionuclides are concentrated in,
but for inhalation the only organ affected is the lung. Therefore - once
again - the effect of an alpha-ray is independent of the origin, whether it
is radon and progeny or plutonium. 

>
>  OK - radsafers, fire away!

I mentioned above, there is no reason to "fire".

Please consider my arguments - any counter arguments will be considered by
me. Of course you can shift the exchange of opinions to my private e-mail,
there is no intent of me to go public!

Best wishes

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
Fax.: same number
mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at


Office:
Hofrat Dr. Franz Schoenhofer
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Radiation Protection Department (BMLFUW I/8 U)
Radetzkystr. 2
A-1031 Vienna
AUSTRIA

phone: -43-1-71172-4458
fax: -43-1-7122331

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html