Re: Reactor Containments and Terrorist Attacks

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Ted et al,

    I would certainly agree that the threat of massive fatalities resulting

from terrorist attacks, meltdowns, and other "catastrophes" related to

nuclear power plants (NPP) has been grossly exaggerated.

    Before blaming the media or the anti-nukes for the problem, it might be

well to look at the historical contribution made by the technical community

. In the mid-60s, the AEC funded a study at BNL to determine the

consequences of a major containment failure at an NPP. This study was

conducted largely by a group of meteorologists capable of evaluating how the

released radioactivity would spread through the environment,

inhaled/ingested by people and what effect it would have. They had good

information on the radionuclide inventory in the reactor core, but faced a

problem in estimating the "source term" or fraction of material that could

be released and mobilized in the environment. They knew that even under the

most pessimistic set of assumptions, not all of the inventory could be

released - so they assumed a 50% fractional release. This rather arbitrary

source term was than subjected to exquisitely detailed meteorololgic

diffusion calculations to assess downwind concentrations and population

effects. This calculational approach lent an aura of authenticity (i.e.

believability) to the study. The result was the notorious WASH-740 report

which predicted tens of thousands of deaths, and provided the basis for the

novel titled "We Almost Lost Detroit". Later, in the early 70's, the

Rasmussen reactor safety study was commissioned, which used a more

scientifically rational approach and considered probabilities. The resulting

WASH-1400 report placed the consequences of potential reactor accidents in

perspective and painted a picture that was not nearly as dire as previous

studies indicated. However, the damage had been done and to this day the

specter of many thousands of deaths looms in the public's mind.

    As I see it, the Chernobyl accident was indicative of the maximum

possible consequences of an NPP accident. Unless you buy into the LNT

nonsense, the fatality total from any NPP accident would be relatively

trivial as compared to what happened at the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

However, I doubt that it would be possible to convince anyone with a degree

in journalism of that.





----- Original Message -----

From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>

To: Franz Schoenhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>; Norman Cohen

<ncohen12@HOME.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:02 AM

Subject: RE: Reactor Containments and Terrorist Attacks





> > What is more propaganda, what causes more

> confusion of stock exchanges, industry, people

> In a rational world, an attack on either a spent fuel pool or a reactor

> containment would be reported on an inner page of the papers, stating that

> some damage was done to the facility, but there was no public hazard.

>

> However, in the world we live in, people in the nuclear community have

> generally supported the idea that radioactivity is a uniquely hazardous

> activity, noting that you can't see, hear, taste, smell or feel radiation

> (and neglecting to point out that radiation is uniquely easy to detect

> compared with chemical or biological hazards).  So we fuel the panic and

the

> news media love it.  This could in fact aid the terrorists by creating

some

> terrible headlines.

>

> The Lochbaums and Leventhals and Makhajanis spread the word, but the word

> they spread are based on the "safety scenarios" we have already created.





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

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.