[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Where the Deer and LNT-lope play?
So what you're saying is that it's acceptable to operate so as to produce
contaminated soil, and then to let that contamination remain long enough to
enter the food chain.
Of course it's acceptable, NOT!!!
I hope that other potential environmental pathways, eg. reentrainment as
airborne contamination, have been evaluated and remediated, as appropriate.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Let's look at the real problem for a change.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US wrote:
> Contaminated sites are fenced and posted to keep out people who can read
> the signs. Having animals fly/crawl/burrow/leap under, over, and around
> these fences is not an indication of a "serious programmatic failure." It
> is inevitable.
>
> Furthermore, if these sites are posted and fenced because of surface
> contamination, then detecting those materials in the environment (including
> the four-legged, antlered part of it) is not surprising, it is expected.
> Those familiar with environmental science, which environmental activists
> typically are NOT, know this.
>
> Failure to detect the transport to the environment (if it is at measureable
> levels) would be a programmatic failure. That obviously did not occur
> here. Failure to model transport of environmental contaminants to human
> exposure would be another, but I'll wager that such modeling is extensively
> documented for this site as well. Failure to recognize anomalies and
> investigate the cause of the variance would be yet another programmatic
> failure (but again, that is not indicated in this case).
>
> I guess one could post armed guards to shoot the next deer that tries to
> jump the fence, but that seems somewhat extreme, especially considering
> that the radioactive material and concentration being discussed will have
> zero health impact on them. Deer don't worry too much about hypothetical,
> one-in-a-million chances of cancer based on LNT models since they will die
> from more "natural" causes (like our "deerly departed", two year old
> road-killed fawn) long before the latent period for postulated cancer onset
> is reached. (Personally, I'd choose to stay inside the fence if I were a
> deer...I'd live longer!)
>
> In short, programs that detect and track movement of contaminants in the
> environment and that are forthright about reporting their results do not
> qualify, in my opinion, as experiencing "serious" failures.
>
> Vincent King,
> Idaho Falls
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
************************************************************************
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/