[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
radsafe-digest V1 #34
radsafe-digest Sunday, April 15 2001 Volume 01 : Number 034
In this issue:
Radon epidemiology - Schneeberg Study
Re: DOE Transuranic Waste Definition
Re: DOE cleanup to fund tax cut
Fwd: Is Nuclear Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?
never before released dosimetry tech reports
Schneeberg study
Schneeberg Study Criticisms
Business Week article
Schneeberg Study Criticisms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:24:26 -0000
From: "Jim Nelson" <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Radon epidemiology - Schneeberg Study
Fritz Seiler,
Why all the bravado? I have just finished reading the long Schneeberg
manuscript at the site that was posted.
What do you think is well done?
As usual, I fear you embrace the results without looking at the methods.
Jim Nelson nelsonjima@hotmail.com
- -----------------------------------------
Hi All,
The Schneeberg report has just given Bernie Cohen, Joe Alvarez
and myself a beautiful Easter Egg! That is a wonderful confirmation of
Bernie Cohen's much maligned data and a push for his and our analysis. All
you have to do is to compare the figure in the Schneeberg Study with Fig. 1
of our analysis in, Seiler, F.A., and J.L. Alvarez, "Is the' Ecological
Fallacy' a Fallacy?" Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 921-941 (2000).
and voila! Well done, Schneeberg authors! I send this also to
RASA-EU and hope to reach you that way. Ich wuensche Euch Allen Schoene
Ostern!
Happy Weekend,
Fritz
***************************
Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
Sigma Five Consulting
P.O. Box 1709
Los Lunas, NM 87031, USA
Tel. 505-866-5193
Fax. 505-866-5197
e-mail: faseiler@nmia.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:53:58 EDT
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: DOE Transuranic Waste Definition
- --part1_cb.ff0e094.2808b356_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
An inventory of transuranic (TRU) wastes is found in DOE/CAO/94-1005, "WIPP
Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report" probably available from the PIO
at the WIPP. The WIPP URL is http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us. O believe you
can easily get the document via the web page.
The definition cited should be cited together with the definition of high
level waste in either the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or 10 CFR 60 or 10 CFR 63.
I do not believe that to date EPA has excluded anything from meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 191.
The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act also refers to TRU waste as "defense-generated."
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
- --part1_cb.ff0e094.2808b356_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT COLOR="#000080" SIZE=2><B>An inventory of transuranic (TRU) wastes is found in DOE/CAO/94-1005, "WIPP
<BR>Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report" probably available from the PIO
<BR>at the WIPP. The WIPP URL is http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us. O believe you
<BR>can easily get the document via the web page.
<BR>
<BR>The definition cited should be cited together with the definition of high
<BR>level waste in either the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or 10 CFR 60 or 10 CFR 63.
<BR> I do not believe that to date EPA has excluded anything from meeting the
<BR>requirements of 40 CFR 191.
<BR>
<BR>The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act also refers to TRU waste as "defense-generated."
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_cb.ff0e094.2808b356_boundary--
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:00:37 EDT
From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: DOE cleanup to fund tax cut
- --part1_6d.1252dc80.2808b4e5_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Some CABs are certainly better than others, "better" meaning more responsible
in their comments and actually responsive to, and representative of, the
community around the site. My limited experience with the Oak Ridge CAB and
the SRS CAB indicates that they do indeed represent the community, have
enhanced communication, and are thoughtful and responsible in their comments.
That cannot be said of the (thankfully now defunct) Sandia CAB or of the Los
Alamos CAB. These groups have been dominated by local anti-nukes, are
neither answerable to nor representative of the communities, and have not
enhanced communication with the community, although DOE has bent opver
backward to provide information, public communications, and forums.
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
- --part1_6d.1252dc80.2808b4e5_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT COLOR="#000080" SIZE=2><B>Some CABs are certainly better than others, "better" meaning more responsible
<BR>in their comments and actually responsive to, and representative of, the
<BR>community around the site. My limited experience with the Oak Ridge CAB and
<BR>the SRS CAB indicates that they do indeed represent the community, have
<BR>enhanced communication, and are thoughtful and responsible in their comments.
<BR> That cannot be said of the (thankfully now defunct) Sandia CAB or of the Los
<BR>Alamos CAB. These groups have been dominated by local anti-nukes, are
<BR>neither answerable to nor representative of the communities, and have not
<BR>enhanced communication with the community, although DOE has bent opver
<BR>backward to provide information, public communications, and forums.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
<BR>ruthweiner@aol.com</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_6d.1252dc80.2808b4e5_boundary--
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:36:25 -0700
From: Lew Helgeson <lewhelgeson@HELGE.COM>
Subject: Fwd: Is Nuclear Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?
- --=====================_1032510==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Radsafers:
I tried to link to the referenced site directly from my e-mail program, Eudora
Pro Version 4.1 and received a message that I had to download the "DUN/RAS
files from AOL." I clicked on the link, AOL started to come up over Eudora, the
files downloaded, were installed and then I was told to re-boot the computer to
make them effective. On doing so I received the same re-boot message. After
re-booting at least 5 times, I re-booted, pressed F8, chose "Safe" and when it
came up, I used the Control Pannel - Add/Remove option to completely remove
AOL. On re-booting I could now get back to my normal Windows environment.
I hope no one else will have to suffer this problem.
Lew Helgeson
>
> X-Authentication-Warning: list.vanderbilt.edu: majordom set sender to
> owner-radsafe@"list.vanderbilt.edu" using -f
> From: Cehn@AOL.COM
> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:32:07 EDT
> Subject: Is Nuclear Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?
> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10513
> Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Reply-To: Cehn@AOL.COM
>
> <aol://4344:109.B3729082.23846814.671576772>Click here: 04/23/01 Is Nuclear
> Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?
>
> Business Week article.
- --=====================_1032510==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Dear Radsafers:<br>
<br>
I tried to link to the referenced site directly from my e-mail program,
Eudora Pro Version 4.1 and received a message that I had to download the
"DUN/RAS files from AOL." I clicked on the link, AOL started to
come up over Eudora, the files downloaded, were installed and then I was
told to re-boot the computer to make them effective. On doing so I
received the same re-boot message. After re-booting at least 5 times, I
re-booted, pressed F8, chose "Safe" and when it came up, I used
the Control Pannel - Add/Remove option to completely remove AOL. On
re-booting I could now get back to my normal Windows environment.<br>
<br>
I hope no one else will have to suffer this problem.<br>
<br>
Lew Helgeson<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>X-Authentication-Warning: list.vanderbilt.edu:
majordom set sender to owner-radsafe@"list.vanderbilt.edu"
using -f<br>
From: Cehn@AOL.COM<br>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:32:07 EDT<br>
Subject: Is Nuclear Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?<br>
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu<br>
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10513<br>
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu<br>
Reply-To: Cehn@AOL.COM<br>
<br>
<font face="arial"><a href="aol://4344:109.B3729082.23846814.671576772">Click
here: 04/23/01 Is Nuclear Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?</a>
<br>
<br>
Business Week article. </blockquote><br>
</font></html>
- --=====================_1032510==_.ALT--
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:37:43 -0400
From: Michael Ravnitzky <mikerav@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: never before released dosimetry tech reports
NEVER BEFORE RELEASED
REPORTS ON DOSIMETRY AND FILM BADGES
compiled by Michael Ravnitzky , mikerav@ix.netcom.com
SELECTED INTERESTING AND LONG-OVERLOOKED GOVERNMENT REPORTS ABOUT RADIATION
FILM BADGES AND RADIATION DOSIMETRY: with an emphasis on NEVER BEFORE
RELEASED reports from the 1950s.
You can get a copy of any of these reports by requesting it from:
Defense Technical Information Center
Attn: DTIC-RSM (Kelly D. Akers, Freedom of Information Act Manager)
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6128
AD C051662, Technical Progress Report and Radiological Supplement, volumes 1
and 2, Research and Development Semi-Annual Report, Signal Corps Engineering
Labs, Fort Monmouth, NJ, 961 pages, June 1950 Secret
AD C005972, Tactical Requirements for Dose and Dose-Rate Information on
Ships, Research and Development Technical Report, by A. Broido, W.L. Fisher
and W.E. Strope, August 1956, 109 pages, USNRDL-TR-105, Confidential
AD B969393, Dosimeter, Tactical E1R1, Final Engineering Test Number 57,
September 1953, 78 pages, CRLR-260, Chemical and Radiological Labs, Army
Chemical Center, Maryland
AD B969118, A Report on Radiation Survey Meters and on Radiation Dosimetry,
Special Report, Otto C. Wagner, Karl Eklund, August 1953, 128 pages,
CRLR-160, Chemical and Radiological Labs, Army Chemical Center, Maryland
AD B233222, Human Engineering Factors in the Design of Radiation Detecting
Units, Avco Government Products Group, Wilmington, MA, 1955, 24 pages
AD B228252, Report of Symposium IV, Chemistry and Physics of Radiation
Dosimetry, Part II, Classified Papers, Conducted by Technical Command 18, 19
and 20 Sept. 1950 at Army Chemical Center, Maryland, by J.H. Rothschild,
L.W. Greene, George B. Wilson, July 1951, 110 pages.
AD B221414, An Improved Film Badge Method for the Accurate Determination of
Personnel Exposures, Rachel Baker, Louis B. Silverman, Feb. 1950, 24 pages,
UCLA-53, University of California, Berkeley.
AD B218853, Safety Rules and Procedures Concerning Activity Hazards,
Technical Information Service, AEC, Oak Ridge, Tenn., June 1944, 43 pages,
MDDC-992.
AD B202331, Dosimetry of X-Rays and Gamma Ray, Inerim Report, James H.
Schulman, September 1950, 15 pages, NRL-3736, Naval Research Lab,
Washington, DC.
AD B200997, Radiological Defense, Vol. 2, Chapter 7, Detection Equipment,
May 1950, 56 pages, NRDL-811, NRDL-AD-221Y, Naval Radiological Defense Lab,
San Francisco, CA.
AD B197472, Fast Neutron Count-Rate Dosimetry, G.S. Hurst, 1944, 16 pages,
ORNL-589, Oak Ridge National Lab, Tenn.
AD B184550, Dose Rates From Alloys Irradiated in the Radiation Effects
Testing Facility, by A.D. King and J.H. Lewis, November 1960, 54 pages,
General Dynamics, Fort Worth, Texas, Convair Aerospace Division.
AD B181588, Nuclear Health Physics, Quarterly Progress Report, Oak Ridge
National lab, K.Z. Morgan, June 1952, 21 pages, ORNL-1277.
AD B181488, Studies and Investigations of Radiac Detectors, April 1952, 12
pages, Maryland University Dept of Physics, NOBSR-49066.
AD B181460, Background Radiation Monitoring Station, by Anthony M. Marzano,
March 1952, 36 pages, Signal Corps Engineering Labs, SCEL-TM-M-1434.
AD B181453, Radiological Defense, Volume 4: Radiac: An Introduction to
Radiological Instruments for Military Use, by D.C. Campbell, January 1950,
100 pages, Armed Force Special Weapons Project.
AD B181010, Evaluation of the Land Self-Developing Film Badge Dosimeter, by
John E. Pickering, May 1951, 12 pages, School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph
AFB.
AD B180501, Dosimetry of X-Rays and Gamma Rays, by James H. Schulman,
September 1950, 18 pages, NRL-3736, Naval Research Lab.
AD B180369, Radiac Detecting Elements Developed by the Polaroid Corporation,
Final report, July 1951, by Margarete Ehrlich and William H. Snedegar, 36
pages, Signal Corps Engineering Labs
AD B180365, A Report Bibliography on the Determination and Measurement of
Radioactivity in Air and Water, Part 1, August 1951, 122 pages, Library of
Congress
AD B180266, The Development of a Radiation Quality Independent Photographic
Dosimeter, Preliminary Progress Report, by Lauriston S. Taylor, July 1950,
55 pages, National Bureau of Standards.
AD B179907, Depth-Dose Measurements of Beta-Ray isotopes with Photographic
Film, by E. Tochilin and R. Golden, August 1952, 21 pages, USNRDL-372, Naval
Radiological Defense Lab.
AD 879665, Analysis of Animal Irradiation Data, Final Report, March 1957,
249 pages, E.H. Smith and Company, Silver Spring, MD, Defense Atomic Support
Agency.
AD 845656, Bibliography with Abstracts of Reports of U.S. Army Nuclear
Defense Laboratory, June 1965 to July 1968, by Dorothy J. Bodt, December
1968, 113 pages.
AD 611250, Biological Hazards, 220 pages, 1952, DASA-WT-372, Defense Atomic
Support Agency.
AD 496453, Development of Film-Type Gamma-Ray dosimeters, Report No. 16
Final, by William A. Shurcliff, October 1950, 42 pages, Polaroid Corp.
AD 476528, An Analytic Methodology for Estimating the Relative Magnitude of
Prompt and Delayed Casualties in Nuclear Land Combat, by Wolf Mostow,
September 1965, 36 pages, naval Radiological Defense Lab.
AD 473604, Biomedical Dosimetry and Response to Internal and External
Radiation, Final Summary Report, 1 Oct. 60 30 Sept 64, report dated August
1965, by H. Brust-Carmona, C.L. Comar, C.H. Darby, Jr. E.L. Gasteiger, H.
Kasprzak, 142 pages, Contract DA49-146XZ058, New York State College of
Veterinary Medicine, Cornell, Ithaca, NY.
AD 460527, Whole body Gamma Counter Studies: applications in Environmental
Health, Annual Progress Report, 1964-65, by Norton Nelson, February 1965, 44
pages, New York University School of Medicine, Contract DA49-007MD970.
AD 444151, A Critical Appraisal of the Adequacy of Existing Combat
Dosimetry, by Robert C. Tompkins, April 1964, 8 pages, Army Nuclear Defense
Lab.
AD 443526, Principles of Radiation and Contamination Control: volume 3:
technical Information Relating to Nuclear Weapons Effects, by R.A. Sulit,
E.J. Leahy and A.L. Baietti, 1944, 154 pages, Naval Radiological Defense
Lab.
AD 443525, Principles of Radiation and Contamination Control: Volume 2:
Procedures and Guideliens Relating to Nuclear Weapons Effects, by R.A.
Sulit, E.J. Leahy and A.L. Baietti, 1944, 340 pages, Naval Radiological
Defense Lab.
AD 419304, A Survey of Current Research and Development in the Field of
Dosimetry, by B.P. Fairand and E.N. Wyler, September 1963, 40 pages,
Battelle Memorial Institute.
AD 296591, Review of Dosimetry Field, by S.I. Taimuty, September 1962,
Stanford Research Institute.
AD 272208, Biomedical Dosimetry and Response to Internal and External
Radiation, by C.L. Comar, D.N. Tapper, September 1961, New York State
Veterinary College, Cornell, Ithaca, New York.
AD 250223, Deposition and Removal of Radioisotopes from the body and
Estimated Tissue Dosages From Inernal Radioisotopes, by C.L. Comar and M.M.
Nold, September 1960, New York State Veterinary College, Ithaca New York
AD 247724, Medical and Industrial Hygiene Procedures for Nuclear Operaitons,
by R.C. Armstrong, November 1960, General Dynamics Convair.
AD 221174, Exposure of Hospital Personnel to X-Radiation, by Charles H.
Powell, Sept. 1959, Cincinnati University
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:54:05 +0200
From: precura.martin@T-ONLINE.DE (Dr. Karl Martin)
Subject: Schneeberg study
Dear Jim,
from your mail to Fritz Seiler I learnt you are not so happy with the Schneeberg
Study due to the methods without further comment. The authors would be glad to
discuss your objections, please let us know what made you unhappy with the
methods.
Regards, Karl
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:46:24 -0000
From: "Jim Nelson" <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Schneeberg Study Criticisms
Karl,
You are correct, in all fairness, I shouldn't criticize the study without
providing some details. I had several problems with the study, but I will
list just three at this time.
In your study, the number of cases was extreley small. In fact on your one
grapgh, that Fritz is so exicted about, showing exposure and lung cancer out
of 6 of your exposure categories, 4 categories had 6 or less cases. I think
you really need a larger sample size before making the announcement that you
are finding a threshold.
My second problem is that it looks like you went back to the 1950s to
collect your cases. Were your controls also chosen from that time period?
If someone died from lung cancer in the 1950s, when did you take the radon
measurements in the home? Weren't you really interested in what the radon
levels were before 1955, say 1930 - 1955?
It looks like you used death certificates to find your lung cancer cases. I
can imagine that 30 and 40 years ago as today, the death certificates list
the cause of death. If it says lung cancer, how do you know that it was the
primary cancer and not just not a secondary cancer the person died from?
How were the lung cancers proven? With such a small sample size I would
think all of these problems are important.
Your exposure categories look like they were chosen arbirarily. They are
uneven. Why with such a small sample size would you select so many expoure
categories? Overall, it looks like you are finding a positive trend for
people living in homes when considering their radon exposure and lung
cancer. What does your dose effect curve look like with just 3 even
categories? Wouldn't a smaller number of categories increase your
confidence for each exposure category?
Has your study been submitted to a journal such as Health Physics? I would
think it would be important to get others to review your work before making
strong claims as is in your report.
Just my 2 cents for what its worth. Jim
- --------------------------------------
>From: precura.martin@T-ONLINE.DE (Dr. Karl Martin)
>Reply-To: precura.martin@T-ONLINE.DE (Dr. Karl Martin)
>To: nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM
>CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Schneeberg study
>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:54:05 +0200
>
>Dear Jim,
>
>from your mail to Fritz Seiler I learnt you are not so happy with the
>Schneeberg
>Study due to the methods without further comment. The authors would be glad
>to
>discuss your objections, please let us know what made you unhappy with the
>methods.
>
>Regards, Karl
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:49:37 EDT
From: Cehn@AOL.COM
Subject: Business Week article
- --part1_b2.140b5199.2809e7b1_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Apparantly, the link to the Business Week Article on nuclear power didn't
work for all list members. Although I loath these long, re-print posts, here
it is:
Business Week: April 23, 2001
News: Analysis & Commentary: Energy
Is Nuclear Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?
Exelon thinks so, and it's betting the ranch
What on earth are Exelon Corp.'s (EXC) Corbin A. McNeill Jr. and John W. Rowe
thinking? At a time when most executives at electric companies had given up
on atomic energy, the co-CEOs went out and created a nuclear powerhouse by
combining McNeill's Peco Energy Co. and Rowe's Unicom Corp. to form a company
with 15 reactors. Then, even before the merger closed last October, they
acquired two more nuke plants, including the surviving unit at Pennsylvania's
Three Mile Island. And they just boosted their holdings in two others, giving
the Chicago-based utility nearly a fifth of the nation's 103-unit nuclear
fleet.
Now, McNeill and Rowe are upping their wager. Some 20 miles north of Cape
Town, South Africa, Exelon is bankrolling a next-generation nuclear plant
that is expected to be smaller, cheaper, and safer than yesterday's giants.
If all goes well, they plan to transfer the technology home and do what no
one has dared do since 1978: put in an order for a new nuclear power plant.
G0OD LUCK. Even some of their peers say the effort is quixotic. ``The NIMBY
hurdle is potentially insurmountable when it comes to nuclear power,'' says
James M. Donnell, CEO of Duke Energy North America (DUK), a Duke Power Corp.
subsidiary that owns five plants outright and stakes in two others.
Environmental activists oppose nukes in general, and there are also
widespread worries about the disposal of nuclear waste.
But the co-chiefs at Exelon are unfazed. McNeill, 61, who heads its
power-generation operations, envisions filing for a
construction-and-operating license in 18 months and loading a new reactor
with fist-size balls of uranium by 2006 at the latest. ``There will be an
extreme reaction from a minority of environmentalists,'' he concedes. But he
thinks public opinion is swinging in favor of atomic energy, swayed by
runaway natural-gas prices and years of accident-free nuclear operations in
the U.S. And he notes the sprawl of homes around Exelon's Limerick facility
near Philadelphia. ``People are really not afraid to live around a plant,''
he says.
To better their chances, McNeill and Rowe would locate the first of the new
nuke plants on the grounds of Exelon's existing facilities, in Illinois or
the Mid-Atlantic region. Meanwhile, the company has been burnishing its image
with a $10 million TV and print-ad campaign that plays up innovation. And
Rowe, 55, who runs Exelon's regulated retail operations in Chicago and
Philadelphia, has worked to build political support.
CHEAPER. The pair contends their plans are economical. Earlier nuclear plants
had to be built all at once, at costs of $4 billion or more. Exelon's
proposed reactors could be built in prefab modules at $110 million per phase.
That works out to $1 million per megawatt of capacity, about the same as
natural-gas-fired generators. At today's gas prices, Exelon's would be
cheaper to operate.
Investors are cheering them on. Last year, while the average share price of
the 26 electric companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index jumped
54%, Exelon shares more than doubled, closing the year at $70.21, though they
have slipped to $67.61 in the recent market collapse. ``This is a company
that's going to pay off for some time,'' predicts Richard C. Larsen, a senior
investment analyst at Lord, Abbett & Co., which owns 4.2 million shares.
Steven L. Fleishman, an analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co., figures Exelon's
earnings will outpace the industry's in 2001, rising 22%, to $1.45 billion,
on $15.5 billion in revenues, thanks largely to its low-cost nukes.
McNeill and Rowe aren't exclusively devoted to their nuclear agenda. In
December, they paid $696 million for a 49.9% stake in Sithe Energies Inc., an
independent power producer with two dozen fossil-fuel plants, mainly in the
Northeast. Exelon is also keeping a big presence in retail electricity sales.
``I'm into whatever makes more money for shareholders,'' says Rowe. But
Exelon's star remains hitched to atomic energy. McNeill's team already is
busy on site selection and preparing applications to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for up to 10 mini-reactors. And after a few more seasons of power
shortages and sky-high gas and oil prices, the fissionaries at Exelon just
may light the way for the industry.
By Michael Arndt in Chicago
Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Any use
is subject to (1) terms and conditions of this service and (2) rules stated
under ``Read This First'' in the ``About Business Week'' area.
Joel I. Cehn, CHP
1036 Hubert Road
Oakland, CA 94610
510.268.1571
(a.k.a. anonymous troublemaker)
- --part1_b2.140b5199.2809e7b1_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>Apparantly, the link to the Business Week Article on nuclear power didn't
<BR>work for all list members. Although I loath these long, re-print posts, here
<BR>it is:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#ff0000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>Business Week:</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> April 23, 2001
<BR>News: Analysis & Commentary: Energy
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000a0" SIZE=4 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>Is Nuclear Power Safe Enough for Your Backyard?
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Exelon thinks so, and it's betting the ranch
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR>What on earth are Exelon Corp.'s (EXC) Corbin A. McNeill Jr. and John W. Rowe
<BR>thinking? At a time when most executives at electric companies had given up
<BR>on atomic energy, the co-CEOs went out and created a nuclear powerhouse by
<BR>combining McNeill's Peco Energy Co. and Rowe's Unicom Corp. to form a company
<BR>with 15 reactors. Then, even before the merger closed last October, they
<BR>acquired two more nuke plants, including the surviving unit at Pennsylvania's
<BR>Three Mile Island. And they just boosted their holdings in two others, giving
<BR>the Chicago-based utility nearly a fifth of the nation's 103-unit nuclear
<BR>fleet.
<BR>Now, McNeill and Rowe are upping their wager. Some 20 miles north of Cape
<BR>Town, South Africa, Exelon is bankrolling a next-generation nuclear plant
<BR>that is expected to be smaller, cheaper, and safer than yesterday's giants.
<BR>If all goes well, they plan to transfer the technology home and do what no
<BR>one has dared do since 1978: put in an order for a new nuclear power plant.
<BR><B>G0OD LUCK.</B> Even some of their peers say the effort is quixotic. ``The NIMBY
<BR>hurdle is potentially insurmountable when it comes to nuclear power,'' says
<BR>James M. Donnell, CEO of Duke Energy North America (DUK), a Duke Power Corp.
<BR>subsidiary that owns five plants outright and stakes in two others.
<BR>Environmental activists oppose nukes in general, and there are also
<BR>widespread worries about the disposal of nuclear waste.
<BR>But the co-chiefs at Exelon are unfazed. McNeill, 61, who heads its
<BR>power-generation operations, envisions filing for a
<BR>construction-and-operating license in 18 months and loading a new reactor
<BR>with fist-size balls of uranium by 2006 at the latest. ``There will be an
<BR>extreme reaction from a minority of environmentalists,'' he concedes. But he
<BR>thinks public opinion is swinging in favor of atomic energy, swayed by
<BR>runaway natural-gas prices and years of accident-free nuclear operations in
<BR>the U.S. And he notes the sprawl of homes around Exelon's Limerick facility
<BR>near Philadelphia. ``People are really not afraid to live around a plant,''
<BR>he says.
<BR>To better their chances, McNeill and Rowe would locate the first of the new
<BR>nuke plants on the grounds of Exelon's existing facilities, in Illinois or
<BR>the Mid-Atlantic region. Meanwhile, the company has been burnishing its image
<BR>with a $10 million TV and print-ad campaign that plays up innovation. And
<BR>Rowe, 55, who runs Exelon's regulated retail operations in Chicago and
<BR>Philadelphia, has worked to build political support.
<BR><B>CHEAPER.</B> The pair contends their plans are economical. Earlier nuclear plants
<BR>had to be built all at once, at costs of $4 billion or more. Exelon's
<BR>proposed reactors could be built in prefab modules at $110 million per phase.
<BR>That works out to $1 million per megawatt of capacity, about the same as
<BR>natural-gas-fired generators. At today's gas prices, Exelon's would be
<BR>cheaper to operate.
<BR>Investors are cheering them on. Last year, while the average share price of
<BR>the 26 electric companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index jumped
<BR>54%, Exelon shares more than doubled, closing the year at $70.21, though they
<BR>have slipped to $67.61 in the recent market collapse. ``This is a company
<BR>that's going to pay off for some time,'' predicts Richard C. Larsen, a senior
<BR>investment analyst at Lord, Abbett & Co., which owns 4.2 million shares.
<BR>Steven L. Fleishman, an analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co., figures Exelon's
<BR>earnings will outpace the industry's in 2001, rising 22%, to $1.45 billion,
<BR>on $15.5 billion in revenues, thanks largely to its low-cost nukes.
<BR>McNeill and Rowe aren't exclusively devoted to their nuclear agenda. In
<BR>December, they paid $696 million for a 49.9% stake in Sithe Energies Inc., an
<BR>independent power producer with two dozen fossil-fuel plants, mainly in the
<BR>Northeast. Exelon is also keeping a big presence in retail electricity sales.
<BR>``I'm into whatever makes more money for shareholders,'' says Rowe. But
<BR>Exelon's star remains hitched to atomic energy. McNeill's team already is
<BR>busy on site selection and preparing applications to the Nuclear Regulatory
<BR>Commission for up to 10 mini-reactors. And after a few more seasons of power
<BR>shortages and sky-high gas and oil prices, the fissionaries at Exelon just
<BR>may light the way for the industry.
<BR>
<BR><I>By Michael Arndt in Chicago
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B></I>Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Any use
<BR>is subject to (1) terms and conditions of this service and (2) rules stated
<BR>under ``Read This First'' in the ``About Business Week'' area.</B>
<BR>
<BR><B>Joel I. Cehn, CHP</B>
<BR>1036 Hubert Road
<BR>Oakland, CA 94610
<BR>510.268.1571
<BR>(a.k.a. anonymous troublemaker)
<BR></FONT></HTML>
- --part1_b2.140b5199.2809e7b1_boundary--
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:32:20 +0200
From: precura.martin@T-ONLINE.DE (Dr. Karl Martin)
Subject: Schneeberg Study Criticisms
Dear Jim,
your three problems with the study became obviously some more when you listed
them. They are worth, together with your proposals, to be discussed.
1. Number of cases
You are right, the number of cases is very small. Therefore we are working to
include in the study more female cases and additionally non-smoking male cases.
This will help to increase the confidence and narrow the CI. We do not expect a
fundamental change in the risk estimate.
The risk analysis was made with two extreme approaches: table 17 with raw data
(14 smokers and all types of histology and cases without confirmed histology
included) and table 18 with stratified data including only cases fullfilling the
strictest demands in data quality (validated non-smokers only and lung cancer
histologic confirmed). Only for table 18 your criticism regarding number of
cases "6 or less" applies.
Both curves (raw and stratified data) are quite similar, confirming that the
lung cancer risk for non-smokers from radon is higher than that from smokers and
that the results from the most demanding data quality is in accordance with the
raw data (only 14 cases smokers, 22%).
We did not pretend to have found a threshold - it was not our intention. In 7.3
"Results from the research", part "Contribution to the discussion of LNT", it
was stated: "The Schneeberg Study is considered by its authors as a contribution
to the growing body of scientific evidence that the LNT model might not be valid
in the low dose range, and that further research is needed". When a "safe
threshold" is mentioned, than only in the sense, that in the low exposure
categories no health risk could be established. We avoided therefore the
expression "certain threshold". Maybe this was not an excact enough wording to
express what was really meant. Sorry.
Despite its small size the overall power of the Schneeberg study is very high. A
comparison of the power of all recent population studies you can take from our
website: Publikationen, "Lembcke, J: Zur Power der Deutschen Radonstudie (Ost),
vollständiger Text, 2000". This paper is in German but you can read easily table
4, adjusted OR, smokers among controls known, mobility considered.
2. Retrospective cases
Response after Easter.
3. Death certificates
The data collection for cases and controls is mainly based on data from the
cancer registry (1952 to 1989). During this period it was mandatory for each
doctor to notify the local cancer registry by standardised forms. From 1990 on
to 1995 due to reunification of Germany, mandatory notification of cancer cases
stopped. Nowadays the cancer registry continues on the Federal State level for
Saxony, including the study area Schneeberg, and mandatory notification of
cancer cases is introduced again. Only cases from 1990 on are collected from
death certificates. Primary cancers only were eligible for inclusion in the
study.
4. Exposure categories
It looks as if the exposure categories were chosen arbitrarily. The reason for
this is, that other population studies, prior to the Schneeberg Study, have
chosen this categorisation (mostly up to >140 Bq/m³). We intend to do a
reanalysis of our data. We have already tried less and other categorisations
with improved results for confidence.
Your summarising remark, that a positive trend for indoor radon exposure and
lung cancer was found is correct, when applied to high exposure levels. What is
questioned is whether low radon levels such as found in most houses may increase
the lung cancer risk. An other conclusion from the Schneeberg study is that the
confounder smoking cannot be controlled invalidating risk estimates for lung
cancer from indoor radon with case-control studies with mainly smokers among
cases and controls. Consequently, we should focus future studies on non-smokers
in highly exposed populations only with a wide range of exposure for instance
from 50 Bq/m³ to > 3.000 Bq/m³.
5. Publication
A first attempt with HP has failed. It will be repeated after some recommended
changes.
Regards, Karl
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
------------------------------
End of radsafe-digest V1 #34
****************************
***********************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe digest mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text
"unsubscribe radsafe-digest" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/