[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tooth Fairy Project - NY Times - some responses



Hi Vincent,



All nuclear plants emit radioactive effluents. From LR-N99078, page 14, in the 4th quarter

of 1998, Salem Unit 2 released the following:



Gaseous Effluents:

Fission and Activiation :  6.15 E +01 ci

Iodines:                           2.39E -04 ci

Particulates  with half lives greater than 8 days:  1.17E -06 ci

  (no amount listed for less than 8 days)

Tritium:                            2.91E +01 ci



Liquid Effluents:

Fission and activation products    4.96 E-02 ci

tritium    8.60E +01 ci

Noble gases:  9.33 E-04 ci



So nuke plants do indeed emit continual amounts of low level radiation. And included in

this flow are radionuclides which

seek out specific parts of the body, where they (like sr90 in bones/teeth) become embedded

in the body and continue to emit radiation, thus harming the immune system of those at most

risk, fetuses, infants, elderly, not 250 lb men, which is what the federal standards were

written for.



I'll make a couple of comments to your questions below:









Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US wrote:



> Norm, Norm, Norm.

>

> WHAT radiation?  There IS NO RADIATION EXPOSURE to these 'poor innocents'

> except what they get from nature or their doctors and dentists.

>

> How do I know this?

>

> Because measuring radiation and detecting radioactive materials is easy.

> We know how to do it.  Also because every nuclear power plant monitors

> their effluents and the environment around their site, including Salem and

> Hope Creek.  YOU CAN MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT TOO if you're really that

> concerned about this. (HINT: downwind and downstream give the best results.

> It also helps to look at the same time the culprit is there, rather than

> before or after.)  Do you know what you will find?  Plenty of natural

> radiation and nothing from the power plants.  No guessing is needed.

>

> Why rely on conjecture and speculation when all you have to do is go out,

> find the evidence (with readily available technology), and PROVE to

> everybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that these "continual doses of low

> level radiation" exist?  I've suggested this before and received no

> response.

>

> No fair, Norm.  You don't get to start with the premise of "continual doses

> of low level radiation" when you haven't provided proof and the means to

> prove it are available.

>

> That reminds me, I'm also still waiting for answers to a couple of other

> questions that I've asked:

>

> -How do these radioactive materials sneak past effluent and environmental

> monitoring in amounts large enough to give anyone a significant dose? It's

> far more straighforward and accurate to monitor/model the pollutant from

> source to receptor than to try to observe speculative 'effects' at a

> distance.



--- The question would be what is a 'significant dose'. But some do indeed sneak by.---



>

>

> -What's the right answer for spent nuclear fuel?  Keep it onsite?



--- Just my humble lowly non-scientist opinion, but there is no "right" answer. I have

posted before, I believe in response to Ruth that I would support the additional risks of

shipment and yucca storage only if it meant phasing out nukes. To ship out waste to allow

nukes to generate more waste is silly (non-scientific term). With no phase-out, leave the

waste where it is until science comesup with transmutation, or a better long term storage

solution.---



> Ship it

> to Yucca Mountain? (If so, how?)  Put it in the alley out back and hope

> someone steals it?



---Ship it to Bush's ranch, or to all those tunnels under the White House. Or better yet,

give it to the military, with their accounting system, it'll soon be lost. ;-)-----



>  It exists whether you like it or not (I know: you

> don't), so you have to have some opinion on what to do with it.  You can't

> exclude ALL options, so what is the option most acceptable to you?  (



--see above ---



> New

> question - why do anti's act as if spent fuel has just now come into

> existence?  It's only been around for decades...when does this great burden

> on humanity begin?)



--- I don't think anti's do act that way. Waste has always been a concern.---



>

> - Why don't people in higher background radiation areas than those around

> Salem/Hope Creek show any negative health effects?  These people are ALWAYS

> receiving "continual doses of low level radiation," but at levels even

> higher than the ones you are concerned with.  If the health effects are

> real, rather than imagined, then they should be evident anywhere there is a

> higher radiation dose to people.



--- See my orignal answer and add to it "other environmental factors". ----



>

>

> These questions aren't that hard, are they?  If you really are that

> concerned, you should be able to provide an honest, thoughtful answer to

> them.  And if you or your group can't generate enough logic to deal with

> questions like these, why should your efforts to influence energy

> generation alternatives be given any credence?



--- well, I did my best. Am now donning my flame-resistant suit for all your answers. ---



norm



>

>

> Vincent King,

> Idaho Falls

> ***************************************************************************************

>

> ...

>  Now none of this proves that Salem/Hope Creek causes cancer, and we at

> Unplug

> Salem don't say that. What we do say is that continual doses of  low level

> radiation

> over periods of time affect the immune system of those most at risk:

> fetuses, infants, and the elderly. A weakened immune system allows other

> environmental toxins (and Salem County has plenty of them) to have a

> stronger

> effect. (synergism).

> ...

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/



--

Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ

08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537;  ncohen12@comcast.net  UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE:

http://www.unplugsalem.org/  COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:

http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org   The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a

chapter of Peace Action.

"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you win. (Gandhi)

"Why walk when you can fly?"  (Mary Chapin Carpenter)





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

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/