[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
Ted,
Radioactive materials ARE uniquely hazardous in that no contact is necessary
for harm to be inflicted.
It is in my young experience apparent that most people respond intuitively
to the idea of ionizing radiation. Intuitively, They just don't like it. I
think it is a mistake to turn a snide smile at the intuitive response.
Intuition is not, in my book, a defect of the intellect. It is a survival
mechanism. So we are taking a chance to dismiss it entirely based on what we
think we know. The numbers on exposures and cancers in Taiwan, for example,
are far from complete or authenticated. Citing them, it seems to me,
borders on rogative incantation....er ,wishful thinking.
Anyway, I've got two points that may or may not relieve your apparent angst
about giving ionizing radiation an undeservedly bad name.
1. Sometimes radiation is treated like the weak-sister of toxic pollutants.
EPA's CERCLA maximum permissible risk levels for various radionuclides are
one and two orders of magnitude less stringent than those for chemical
poisons. Sr-90 MCL's translate to 1 to 3 in 10,000, for example. Permissible
concentrations for many chemicals translate to risk at 1 to 6 in 1,000,000.
These are approximations, you can look up the solid numbers, but the point
is radiation gets a break in industrial site clean-up.
2. We can't protect everybody from everything. Most of us frequenting this
list seem to be focused on radioactive materials (as in, "radsafe") so there
is little gain to be had from speculating about other hazards especially
when the speculations are laced with emotionalism.
I hope this helps. Thanks, Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org>
To: Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime.net>; maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>;
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
> I wish all you guys would stop reinforcing the concept that radioactivity
is
> uniquely hazardous. It isn't. (Try a gallon of LSD tossed over the fence
> into the water reservoir. Or Sarin in the subway air system.) But
> radiation can sure be uniquely terrifying if we keep telling people it is.
>
> So many substances can injure or incapacitate instantly. Is that really
> less effective than having someone call up and say "If you guys keep using
> that building, we calculate you will increase your chance of getting
cancer
> 30 years from now by 28%"
>
> C'mon, people. We've got to give up the conceit that radiation is the
most
> dangerous thing in the whole world. The thick cloud of fireworks smoke
> enveloping major cities this week, containing strontium, barium, boron,
and
> who knows what else, is probably more lethal than what you could scatter
> around with a dirty bomb.
>
> Does everybody realize that 10,000 people (or more) have been living in
> apartments in Taiwan where Co-60 in the rebar has been giving them up to
100
> rad? This has been going on for more than a decade, and they can't even
get
> people to move out. The cancer rate is way below normal. So nobody in
> authority will talk about it. They don't want to endanger all the money
> going to study stuff like the horrors of low-dose radiation and the
dangers
> of proliferation.
>
> This problem wouldn't exist, except as a low-priority question to be dealt
> with in due course along with a lot of other such questions. Let's not
make
> it a big deal.
>
> I understand the Iraqis tested one such bomb and decided it was militarily
> useless. It really is. Honest. It's much easier to do it dozens of
other
> ways.
>
> Ted Rockwell
>
>
************************************************************************
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.