|
To those
that have the IAEA TECDOC 1162, Generic Procedures for Assessment and Response
during a Radiological Emergency, 2000, please GO TO page 27, Transport Accident,
Fig 5 B
There you can find the main
actions for different types of packages and scenarios, considering the dominant
radiological hazard and hazard level. Evacuation 100m around and 200m downwind
is recommended in case if the
package appears to be damaged or leaking and be a Type B Spent fuel, and if the
external exposure surface contamination is high, besides others measures
indicated;
In case of fire or
explosion - spill or fumes present, still considering type B spent fuel,
evacuation is recommended up 300m
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 7:06
PM
Subject: Re: Truck carrying 'low-level'
radioactive tools crashes
The emergency response organizations probably referred to the
DOT's "Emergency Response Guidebook." Guide 162 is the designated guide
for a "low specific activity" or "surface contaminated object" shipment, which
probably applies to this shipment. This guide states: "...If
material is released from package or bulk container, hazard will vary from low
to moderate...Consider inital downwind evacuation for at least 100
meters..." The actual response was undoubtedly on the conservative side
of these guidelines, but I can't blame them.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's
about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Michael G. Stabin" wrote:
Perhaps we should define a "relative
hysteria index" (RHI). This raised "fears of a nuclear disaster" and sent
"hundreds of emergency workers racing to the scene"? Puh-lease. Some dirty
tools spilled on the road, and the RHI = 0.97. For comparison
recently..... Aug 11,
2002, "Two people died Sunday when a tanker truck crashed on a bridge over
Interstate 4, the main route to Sea World, and erupted into flames,
officials said... " http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/11/tanker.crash/index.html<?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>
Aug 11, 2002, "A
tractor-trailer carrying a cargo of peaches slammed into two cars and killed
six people in Oklahoma, including a family of five from Nebraska, police
said... " http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/11/oklahoma.crash.ap/index.html<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
/>Aug 10,
2002, Westport, N.Y.
— A freight train spilled a hazardous powder Saturday as one car derailed
and was dragged for seven miles in northern New
York state, said state police… http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60090,00.html RHI = 0.0 for these incidents, apparently. I read
the second story over the weekend, but for some reason did not become
fearful of major peach disaster occurring. Mike Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt
University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone
(615) 343-0068
Fax (615) 322-3764
e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
internet www.doseinfo-radar.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002
10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Truck carrying
'low-level' radioactive tools crashes In a message dated
8/14/02 9:27:43 AM Mountain Daylight Time, caspar@AECOM.YU.EDU
writes:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/081402/14nukecrash.html
This article
revealed several things, besides the rampant
hysteria:
1. The
differences in packaging are either not understood or deliberately
distorted by the press and/or those who inform the
press.
2. Why is "low level" in quotes?
this is defined by regulation. Again, this is a nasty little (and I
suspect deliberate) distorion, as in "well they are trying to tell us it's
low level, but we know..."
3. The fact that there
was no radioactive contamination is downplayed -- middle of the article --
"same as in the manifest" without saying what that
was.
Ruth Weiner, Ph.
D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
|