Re: NIMBY for Nevada vs. rad risk -- level the playing field?

[SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM]

In a message dated 3/11/02 8:25:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:



> BTW#2, if you had been "fighting with all your might" to actually improve
>
> nuclear safety, eg., preventing TMI and Chernobyl (both of these were 100%
>
> preventable), instead of "perceptions," you would have been a lot more
>
> effective.


==========

Radsafe:


Anti-nukes have managed to convince many [not just members of the public, but media, and decision makers in government]  that if there is anything other than zero radiation exposure and zero risk the operation in question is a failure. Since zero release, and zero radiation exposure will never be achievable from any nuclear endeavor, no matter how much nuclear power or nuclear technoligy specialists might work to "improve nuclear safety", no matter how many additional safety features are added, no matter what steps are taken to limit releases to trivial levels,  the endeavor is doomed to failure in reaching an unachievable goal. 


Accordingly, the HP community can try to reverse the rotation of the earth [as it were given current hyper perceptions that trivial radiation doses are a real issue] by convincing everyone that trivial doses cause no health concerns or may actually be of some net benefit -- or it can work using its expertise in radiation measurement and assessment to point out that nuclear power should be evaluated as to its risks and benefits on radiation grounds alone vs. any of its other bulk power generation or energy saving/conservation alternatives. For example natural gas in domestic unvented space heaters and stoves inside homes results  in millions of person-rems dose to the bronchial epithelium each year. Should this be significantly reduced to !

make it as "safe" as nuclear power generated electricity per unit energy of gas consumed.  Does natural gas and oil extraction cause NORM contamination and occupational dose and widespread contamination of land and dose to pipeline workers? Does coal mining and burning and ash disposal result in radiation exposure more or less than nuclear power? 


Do domestic energy conservation programs [which decrease fresh air infiltration]  increase radon exposure to homeowners and is there a real exposure to real people per unit energy saved by the conservation effort that could be reduced by some means [like heat exchangers to bring in more fresh air while recovering heat] to perhaps make conservation efforts close to as safe in terms of limited radiation exposure as nuclear generated electricity produced. Is a storm window, more of a radiation risk than a nuclear power plant's radioactivity releases, or the waste transport to Yucca, and nuclear waste disposal in deep undergroung repositories? 


I conducted a limited study in the early 1990s of Cs-137 residual from open air testing of nuclear weapons present in domestic woodash which got extensive news coverage in Maine and across the country after I posed the tongue-in-cheek question in presenting a paper at the HPS annual meeting  on the issue: "Woodburners and Organic Farmers -- Is it Time to Kiss your Ash Goodbye?"


I was told by Maine State regulators that for a few months nuclear power questions faded away to zero after the news coverage on radioactive wood ash from fallout, and all the ME State rad staff were being asked were questions about radioactive wood ash and whether it was safe to use it as a fertilizer. The doses were trivial from ash use but even Rodale's Organic Gardening magazine [with a paid circulation of over 1,000,000 at the time and a long term anti-nuke publication] felt forced to admit in its coverage that a few mrem a year exposure to organic farmers from Cs-137 in ash applied on gardens over the long was no big deal vs. the 360 WB dose equivalent of natural background. Is getting Organic Gardening magazine to admit that a few mrem/year radiation exposure is trivial some sort of progress?  Will Yucca cause radiation exposure to people all over the nations of a few mrem/year?? You tell me. 


In fact, nuclear generated electricity, and waste disposal, is "safer" than every bulk power alternative currently available if radiation exposure alone is your narrow focus The nuclear power industry and HPs don't have to convince the world at the start that LNT is wrong at low doses, a fraction of background. HPs  don't have to convince the scientific community of the validity of hormesis. Keep it simple. Accept radiation exposure as it is from all real and current bult alternatives and offer comparisons and ask that all technologies and sources of energy operate on a level playing field of radiation exposure. When you do this, the public comes to you since you have expertise in radiation measurements, monitoring, and assessment not the anti-nukes. 


Nuclear energy has everything to gain and nothing to lose in this type of comparison and HPs should demand equal radiation exposure and risk from alternate power generation or conservation technologies. 



Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

email: SAFarberMSPH@cs.com