[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Anthrax question
Maury and others:
There were two articles in Saturaday's Washington Post on the historical,
recent and ancient that may be of interest. The thing to remember is that
anthrax has been with human's for centuries, and we can over come it. What
worries me is that they are now talking about smallpox. Yet, there is no
evidence that it is out there.
We are dealing with isolated incidences, but are running scared. Now the
Postal Service is talking aobut buying irradiators to sterilize all the
mail. (And you thought a one cent increase is too much.) Even if they
ordered the units tomorrow, it will take a year for new units to be built.
"Get a grip on it!"
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
The Ancient History of a Bacterium: Anthrax Scares Go Way Back
By Ken Ringle
And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died:
but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=wpni/email&articlei
d=A59993-2001Oct26&node=print/style
Past Studies of Anthrax Have Limited Use in Current Outbreak
By David Brown
The outbreak of anthrax in places where it's never been seen - newspaper
offices, postal buildings and crowded suburbs - is writing a new chapter in
a disease that until a month ago had nearly vanished from the United States.
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=wpni/email&articlei
d=A59520-2001Oct26&node=nation/specials/attacked
-----------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:23:24 -0500
From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>
Subject: Anthrax question
Radsafers knowledgeable about anthrax,
Is there just a wee possibility that we are finding anthrax spores
"everywhere" because only now are we looking everywhere for them? Given
that dormant spores commonly are in soil worldwide, does anyone know the
likely result if a national random sample of 1000 nasal swabs were
checked for the presence of anthrax spores? (And please, we do know that
the poor fellow who had his nose swabbed 1000 times will have an awfully
sore nose.) When were mail rooms or post office handling units last
checked for anthrax - or for any number of other organisms with which we
are usually unconcerned ....?
Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:35:56 -0400
From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>
Subject: Decision time!
A challenge to Eagle, NEI, ANS, HPS and individuals and organizations
committed to the future of nuclear power:
Responding to pressure from anti-nuclear groups, DOE has agreed to suspend a
shipment of spent fuel. NIRS responded by gleefully pointing out that DOE
has now conceded that spent fuel shipments pose an unacceptable threat to
public safety (recently posted by Norm). Nuclear advocates must immediately
take issue publicly with this position or give up their right and ability to
utilize Yucca Mountain. A simple engineering analysis will show that there
is no credible way that a shipping cask of spent fuel can be made to create
a serious public hazard. That analysis should be made quickly (in a few
days) and released with major publicity.
The nuclear community has consistently refused to challenge extreme
statements about the safety of spent fuel shipments, arguing that they don't
want to be accused of not taking safety seriously. But by silently
assenting to statements that these shipments are inherently hazardous, they
give up the ability to credibly defend Yucca Mountain shipments. One can't
have it both ways.
Historically, the response to such challenges has been to add more guards,
more barriers, more background checks, more circuitous routing. This just
reinforces the premise that the casks are inherently hazardous. The simple
engineering fact is that it is impossible to create a significant public
hazard with a spent fuel shipping cask no matter what you do to it.
By being unwilling over the years to clearly make such a statement, the
industry has lost its ability to reverse this situation with words. Yet
there is a simple, cheap action that could be taken immediately that would
dramatically change the whole game, world-wide. Someone must have the
gumption to follow up the analysis with a public demonstration.
We must take a typical spent fuel shipping cask and detonate a "typical"
terrorist bomb against it, with cameras and radiation detectors monitoring
the event. This would presumably fail to damage the cask appreciably and
release no radioactivity. Then enough explosive to break open the cask (a
BIG bomb!) should be set off. After that, survey meters and air samplers
should be able to demonstrate that anyone far enough away to avoid injury by
the bomb would not suffer significant radiation injury. This of course is
based not on 4 mrem/yr but on the NRC's conservative emergency one-shot
exposure of 25 rem. Afterwards, viewers would be asked to imagine the
consequences of applying such a bomb to a natural gas pipeline or storage
facility, or to the chlorine tanks at a local water-works, or even to a
corner filling station with its gasoline pumps directly connected to
underground tanks. Nuclear spent fuel casks are not an effective terrorist
target.
This could be done at Idaho. But it can't be turned over to the people who
take 30 years and $15 billion to dig a hole in the ground. Somebody has to
have the guts to just do it, without frills or complications. Just a simple
demonstration, like the F-4 Phantom crashing into a wall. Then don't hide
the results as was done with the F-4, with statements like "we never
considered the possibility of terrorism" and "the plants were not designed
for this situation." Just show, in terms everyone can understand, that
these shipments cannot cause a public hazard.
The "mobile Chernobyl" crowd will be shown up for what they are. After
that, maybe someone would be sufficiently emboldened to make a realistic
analysis of an attack on a reactor.
If you don't believe the test would demonstrate that the casks are
inherently harmless, then you probably will never be able to make shipments
to Yucca Mountain. And since you have insisted on putting Yucca Mtn on your
critical path, you will have condemned humanity to a world of windmills and
candles.
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.
------------------------------
End of radsafe-digest V1 #210
*****************************
***********************************************************************
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/
************************************************************************
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.