Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?

["Raymond Shadis" <shadis@ime.net>]

TED,

NCRP has it that the spent fuel in about 1/4 of a 5 year PWR fuel assembly

(100 kg) blown sky-high by 1000 lbs. of TNT will yield doses (gamma) of

about 450 RAD/HR over a area of 2700 sq.kM @ 24 hours post blast. I think

this potential calls for armed security at interim spent fuel storage sites.

This is not, in my book, fear mongering, it is taking responsible

precautions.



Yaks, huh? How are they on bioaccumulating fallout from the Chinese and

Russian weapons tests? Never mind that. What are the rates of mental

retardation in Tibet? Maybe lead gets a bad rap from the fear-mongering

press.

Well, Thanks for the Tibetan aside. I'm scheduled to have breakfast ( as

part of a group) with NRC Commissioner Greta Dicus on Monday morning.

Commissioner Dicus, you may know, has assigned herself a study of changing

perceptions on radiation risk.You can just bet I will ask (stage voice) if

my eggs and hash were cooked over yak turd fires.



Have a great work week..........................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 11:44 PM

Subject: RE: So, is reprocessing in America's future?





> > Radioactive materials ARE uniquely hazardous in that no contact is

> necessary

> for harm to be inflicted...

> I think it is a mistake to turn a snide smile at the intuitive response.

>

> Ray:

>

> Thanks for the input.  Let me say first, I have great respect for

intuition.

> I agree with Einstein that it is the source of all innovation.  But in

this

> case, it's hard to separate the effect of intuition from the effect of the

> steady input of radiophobia.

>

> Scattering some radioactivity around generally results in a calculated

> ingestion hazard (requiring direct contact of the most personal kind).

> External radiation from such particles would not be serious unless there

was

> a truly huge number of curies involved.  I believe there are many ways of

> creating more havoc much more simply.  I just don't see how radiation is

> uniquely dangerous.  My daughter just got back from a month in Tibet, most

> of the time between 15 to 17,000 feet, plus flying.  Her intuition didn't

> warn her of any danger.  Incidentally, the real danger there is from lead

> poisoning, which comes from breathing smoke from yak dung fires.  Yaks

> apparently eat plants that concentrate lead!  Science did a cover story

some

> years ago that said (as I recall) that Tibetans's blood is among the

highest

> lead content in the world.  And its half-life is infinite :-)

>

> Thanks again,

>

> Ted

>

> Your point about the relative risks from chemicals is interesting.

>

> Thanks again.

>

>



************************************************************************

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.