[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tooth Fairy Project - NY Times - some responses
Norm,
The following are the annual releases from 1 square mile of undisturbed
soil. Agricultural land would give off about 3 times as much.
Gaseous Effluents:
All airborne radioactivity: ~ 33 Ci
Noble Gasses (Rn 222): ~ 7 Ci
Particulates with half lives greater than 8 days (mostly Pb-210): ~ 0.04 Ci
Particulates with half lives less than 8 days: Subtract the > 8 days and
noble gasses from the total.
Liquid Effluents: too lazy to calculate
(I am far too young to know what a Ci is, so I had to look it up in an old
book. Maybe someone more familiar with the historical units can check the
arithmetic. The assumptions where: radon emanation fraction = 0.1, depth
from which Rn escapes = 6 inches (18 inches for disturbed soil), 1g of
radium per sq mile in a depth to 6 inches (from my CRC handbook.))
As our local anti-nukes (anti U mining) will tell you: these radionuclides
are much, much, much more dangerous than your NPP fission products because
there is a higher proportion of alpha emitters.
That means that if Salem has a paved industrial apron, access roads or
parking lot (radon barrier), it will probably result in a net decrease in
radiation dose to people.
Here is a question for you Norm:
You are convinced that your local NPP is bad for you for whatever reason.
You also think there may be something to the pseudo statistics that show a
correlation between the operation of an NPP and low birth weight and infant
mortality.
So far, I can understand it. I probably hold some beliefs that have not been
100% proven mathematically. What I don't understand is why you would
hypothesize the causal agent to be radiation????
Radiation is probably the most studied agent in human history. Where is the
data that shows immune system suppression as an endpoint of low level
radiation? (Was there an epidemic of pneumonia deaths after Chernobyl? Is
the infant mortality in Colorado 100%?).
Radiation is also easy and cheap to measure. We know the releases of
radioactivity from NPPs are low compared to natural levels of radioactivity.
If you think breast milk has elevated levels of radioactivity, just hold a
meter up to someone's breasts. (Get her permission first.) If you want to
identify a specific radionuclide, send some milk to a lab. You can do the
same with any tissue where you think a radionuclide has accumulated. Just
take a measurement. That way you don't have to hypothesize about the
pathway.
Why don't you pick an agent that is not impossible? NPPs must release
biological and chemical agents that are less well studied and quantified
than radiation. Perhaps some bugs are living in the cooling tower. Perhaps
specialists employed by the NPP from other regions are bringing in new
strains of the cold/flu and other bugs.
There must be a million possible causal agents that are more likely than
radiation.
Kai
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@comcast.net>
To: "Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US" <KINGVA@INEL.GOV>
Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:31 PM
Subject: 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/