RE: radiation exposure coal vs. nuke

["Gary Damschen" <rad@pageturners.com>]

I think a quick check of the documents the table was derived from will show
that the 0.009 mrem value for nukes is a (significant) misprint. The worst
case number I can find easily is about .0025 mrem/person for 1984 (Golnick
3rd Edition) , still less than the best coal estimate. By 1986, the annual
dose was <0.001 mrem/person. So I would say that the number that was
supposed be on that page is probably conservatively 0.0009 mrem, an order of
magnitude difference. The actual number is probably substantially lower than
that. Since this level of exposure appears to be a concern to the TFP folks,
perhaps they should agitate for the immediate evacuation and closure of all
lands more than 3 inches above mean sea level to ensure the safety of the
general public (a increase in altitude of about 3 inches gives an annual
effective dose increase of about 0.001 mrem - please no flames, I know it's
not precise, but precision is practically meaningless at this level anyway).

My own opinion,
Gary Damschen, RRPT
Kelly Services
rad@pageturners.com

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