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

Re: Truck carrying 'low-level' radioactive tools crashes



 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

Jose Julio Rozental
Israel
 
 
 
----- 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, 2002WestportN.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