[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
In a World of Hazards, Worries Are Often Misplaced
NOTE: I will be out of the country from August 23 - September 1.
Depending on internet connections available, there may not be any
news distributions during this time
Index:
In a World of Hazards, Worries Are Often Misplaced
Nuke Waste May Be Inviting Target
Fewer Guards at Nuke Plants
Yokosuka holds drills on possible nuclear-sub accident
Greenpeace stirs row over nuclear shipment
==========================
In a World of Hazards, Worries Are Often Misplaced
New York Aug 20 (NY Times) - Spared from worry about whether they
will have enough to eat today or a roof over their heads tomorrow,
most Americans have the luxury of worrying about the hazards that may
be lurking in their air, water and food as a result of all this
progress and affluence.
We are healthier, live longer, have more sources of pleasure and
convenience and more regulations of industrial and agricultural
production than ever, but we are also more worried about the costs to
our health of environmental contaminants.
This is not to say there is nothing to worry about. In an ideal
world, progress would result only in benefits, no risks. In an ideal
world, we would be able to produce, organically and inexpensively,
all the food we need and the food our importers rely on. In an ideal
world, manufacturing would leave no residues in air, water or soil,
and people would be smart and disciplined enough to resist exposure
to health-robbing substances like tobacco and consistent about using
protective devices like seat belts, helmets and condoms.
But this is not and never will be an ideal world, so bad things will
occasionally happen. Regulations cannot control every risk. Besides,
every regulation has a price. The millions or billions spent in
compliance and enforcement might be better used in ways that would
save many more lives, and sometimes the cost is not worth the
potential benefit. I say "potential" because in many cases, the risks
involved are only hypothetical, extrapolations from studies in
laboratory animals that may have little or no bearing on people.
For example, despite widespread belief and laboratory studies in rats
that link pollution to breast cancer on Long Island, this month an $8
million federal study found no evidence that environmental
contamination from pesticides and industrial chemicals was
responsible.
Why People Worry
"People are scared about environmental dangers," noted Dr. Glenn
Swogger Jr., a psychiatrist in Topeka, Kan. "Being scared affects
their ability to think realistically and use good judgment."
Underlying these fears, he believes, are uncertainty about the
effects of exposures to certain substances, a tendency to overreact
and seek scapegoats in stressful situations, guilt about our
affluence and an unspoken wish to return to a simpler and purer
world.
Experts in risk perception say people who become agitated about real
or potential risks are influenced by a number of "outrage" factors.
Prominent among them is control. Is the risk voluntarily assumed or
imposed by others? A woman I know who eats only organically grown
food enjoys rock climbing, skiing and whitewater rafting, sports far
riskier than all the chemical fertilizers, pesticides and antibiotics
combined. Likewise, does it make sense for smokers to worry about
pollution from a nearby factory?
In short, too often, the risks people worry most about are out of
proportion to the actual dangers involved.
Next is the fairness factor. Is there a benefit to the consumer, or
are consumers assuming risks resulting from benefits gained only by
the manufacturer? A classic example is toxic waste dumped on a
community. Or, if there are some consumer benefits, are they out of
proportion to the risks? One example is the use of antibiotics in
animal production, a process that has led to the spread of antibiotic-
resistant bacteria.
Is the hazard natural or caused by people? Although there was a brief
flurry of concern about radon, which emanates naturally from soil and
rock, perpetual and far more intense concern arises over
radioactivity from mine tailings and nuclear power plants. Yet the
known cost to lives from other energy sources, including solar power,
gas and oil, still far exceeds that associated with nuclear power.
How new or familiar is the risk? People worry much more about
possible accidents caused by new technologies than about ones they
have known about all their lives. Traditional plant-breeding
techniques have resulted in no protests. But the introduction of
genetically modified foods has prompted some people to pay premium
prices for foods said to be free of any genetic manipulation, even if
it results in more wholesome products.
Is there potential for a catastrophe? Consumers have repeatedly
ranked nuclear power as the No. 1 hazard among more than two dozen
activities and technologies, including smoking and handguns. Many
people are far more frightened of air travel, especially after a
plane crash, than they are of driving, which, mile for mile, presents
a far greater risk.
Facts to Consider
It is not possible to anticipate, regulate and control every risk.
Priorities must be assigned for risk management, with time and money
devoted to those hazards best established and most likely to cause
the most harm.
Not every regulation is a good investment. For example, for each
premature death averted, the regulation that lists petroleum refining
sludge as a hazardous waste costs $27.6 million while the rule that
does the same for wood preserving chemicals costs $5.7 trillion per
death avoided, according to estimates from the Office of Management
and Budget.
The asbestos ban, at $110.7 million per life saved, was a bargain
compared with the exposure limits placed on formaldehyde, which cost
an estimated $86.2 billion per death averted.
Animal tests that result in cancer caused by a suspect substance do
not necessarily apply to people. Half of all chemicals that have been
tested have caused cancer in one or another experimental animal, but
not always in all species or strains tested or even in both sexes.
Often animal strains genetically susceptible to certain cancers are
chosen for these tests. When very large doses are used in animal
tests, the result is often toxicity and inflammation, which itself
can cause cancer even if the substance is not carcinogenic.
A cardinal rule in toxicology is "the dose makes the poison." You can
eat a dozen carrots at once with no ill effect, but 400 carrots could
kill you. Animal studies rarely reveal the possible effects, or
safety, of long-term exposure to the kinds of low doses people may
experience.
Keep in mind that we all have livers, which accrue and detoxify small
amounts of hazardous substances. Another limitation of animal tests
is their usual failure to detect risks that may result from
interactions between two or more otherwise innocuous substances.
Remember, too, that "natural" is not necessarily safer, and just
because something is manufactured does not make it a potential
hazard. Nature is hardly benign. Arsenic, hemlock and, despite its
current medical applications, botulism toxin are wholly natural but
also deadly.
For helpful, detailed discussions of how best to consider
environmental threats, consult the new book "How Much Risk? A Guide
to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards" (Oxford University
Press) by Inge F. Goldstein and Martin Goldstein, who explain how
controversies are investigated and why scientists sometimes disagree
and fail to find definitive answers.
-------------------
Nuke Waste May Be Inviting Target
LUSBY, Md. (AP)- On the shore of one of the country's most bountiful
waterways, the Chesapeake Bay, two reactors have produced electricity
for nearly a quarter century - and accumulated 950 tons of
radioactive waste.
Some security experts worry that at Calvert Cliffs on the Chesapeake
and other nuclear power plants, the most vulnerable terrorist target
may not be the reactors, but the waste they produce.
Last month, President Bush signed into law a plan to ship used
reactor fuel, now kept in deep pools of water at power plants in 31
states, to a central underground repository in the Nevada desert.
But the Yucca Mountain site is not expected to open until 2010 and
still faces legal and regulatory hurdles, while the amount of reactor
waste - now about 45,000 tons nationwide - is growing by 2,000 tons a
year.
Nestled on 380 coastal acres surrounded by a nature preserve, dense
woods and agricultural land where tobacco farming once was a way of
life, the Calvert Cliffs plant has produced about 30 tons of spent
fuel a year since its two reactors began operating in the mid-1970s.
Most of the radioactive waste is kept in 39 feet of treated water in
what looks like an indoor swimming pool, though much deeper and
reinforced with a steel liner and four feet of concrete. With pool
space filing up, a small amount of the waste has been stashed in
steel casks inside concrete bunkers on the site.
``We think it's very safe ... in the pool and in the dry storage
area,'' says Peter Katz, senior plant official and a vice president
of Constellation Energy, the plant's owner. He says he doesn't ``for
a minute doubt the safety and security'' of the material.
Because of new terrorist concerns, Katz is tightlipped about
precautions taken and he won't tell how much fuel is kept there or
specify its location. He agreed only reluctantly to meet with a
reporter - and then only at the now-shuttered visitors' center
outside the complex perimeter.
Before Sept. 11, Calvert Cliffs officials freely provided such
information, even distributing an aerial photograph identifying plant
structures by number, including the reactors, spent fuel pool
building, and the dry-cask waste storage area.
Shown one of the photos, Katz lamented: ``I can't get them all
back.''
Federal security experts believe Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network
has been interested in nuclear facilities, and power plants have been
on high alert since September. The nearby waters of the bay are now
off limits to boaters. Plant guards carry automatic weapons. All but
business-related visitors are turned away.
Because the government was supposed to take the spent fuel years ago,
plants were never designed for long-term storage. Nor were fuel pools
designed with a terrorist attack of the scale launched last September
in mind.
While the highly radioactive fuel rods inside the reactor are
protected by a four-foot-thick concrete dome, anti-nuclear activists
consider the spent fuel a potential easy target.
``An attack against a spent fuel pool could drain enough water to
cause a catastrophic radiological fire that cannot be extinguished,''
Robert Alvarez, a former Energy Department senior policy adviser,
told a recent Senate hearing. He cited a 1997 analysis that said such
a fire could contaminate up to 188 square miles.
Another nuclear critic, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned
Scientists, said the industry's mock security exercises have paid
little attention to protecting waste at reactor sites.
The NRC acknowledges its studies on spent fuel vulnerability have
focused on ensuring the pools can withstand an earthquake or other
natural disaster - not a terrorist assault. In May, the NRC ordered
increased security for spent fuel pools at all plants and a review of
their vulnerability to a terrorist attack. The review has not been
completed.
But Joe Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the
industry trade group, said preliminary findings of an industry-
sponsored analysis show the pools are ``much more robust and much
more well protected ... than we even believed.''
The analysis showed a crashing aircraft would not rupture the pool,
despite major damage to the building itself, he said. ``The pool
would not leak significantly,'' he said.
Jack Skolds, chief nuclear officer at Exelon, which owns 17 reactors
in Illinois and Pennsylvania, also cited the new industry analysis
and said: ``Can I categorically say every spent fuel pool would
withstand the impact of a (Boeing) 767? No I can't tell you that. I
can tell you they are very safe indeed,'' says Skolds.
An uncontrollable fire in a fuel pool was theoretically possible,
Skolds said, but ``the number of things that would have to happen are
so unlikely that the probability of that occurring is very, very
small.''
Exelon operates the oldest commercial power reactor still operating -
the Dresden plant, near Joliet, Ill., where 6,579 fuel assemblies,
some 15,000 tons, are stored in twin pools.
During the debate over Yucca Mountain repository, Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham insisted the waste is safe. However, he repeatedly
cited the security, safety and environmental concerns of leaving it
scattered at reactor sites, many of which are near precious waterways
or population centers.
``The question is how safe do you want it,'' said Colvin of the
Nuclear Energy Institute. ``...The safest possible way to protect the
spent fuel is have it all in one location.''
On the Net:
Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: http://epw.senate.gov/
-------------------
Fewer Guards at Nuke Plants
WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of guards protecting nuclear materials
and facilities nationwide has been slashed by 40 percent,
jeopardizing their security, a Democratic lawmaker says.
Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts released Energy Department figures
Monday showing that between 1992 and 2001 DOE whittled its security
forces from 7,091 employees to 4,262.
Among those hit were the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in Louisiana,
where security forces were reduced from 233 to 113. Security
personnel at the Nevada Test Site were cut from 276 to 115. Rocky
Flats, a former nuclear weapons plant outside Denver, had security
forces cut from 380 to 154.
``It is clear that DOE has continued its long tradition of aggressive
indifference to the security of its nuclear weapons facilities,''
Markey said in a statement.
Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, said the figures don't paint an accurate picture. He
said
security was scaled back as facilities shut down after the Cold War,
but hundreds of guards have been hired since Sept. 11, which
is not reflected in Markey's figures.
``Any implication that nothing has changed in our security since
Sept. 11 is patently ridiculous,'' Wilkes said.
Wilkes said Markey has been briefed on the changes.
While the bulk of the cuts in security forces came during the Clinton
administration, Markey spokesman Israel Klein said a
Republican Congress must take part of the blame for not spending
enough on security.
The security cuts were among the findings in a report Markey prepared
based on more than 200 pages of documents he requested
from DOE. Much of the material was classified and could not be
released.
Markey also said records showed computer hackers have broken into DOE
computers numerous times since 1999. The breaches
varied in their severity, but some were ``root-level'' compromises,
which meant the hacker had enough access that a virus could be
installed.
Wilkes said the Energy Department has added ``firewalls'' between
computer systems and patched holes in computer security and
continually re-evaluates its system.
``They weren't a coordinated effort and none of those systems which
were attacked and compromised contained any classified or
sensitive information,'' he said.
Rep. Ed Markey: http://www.house.gov/markey
Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov
-----------------
Yokosuka holds drills on possible nuclear-sub accident
YOKOSUKA, Japan, Aug. 20 (Kyodo) - The city of Yokosuka in Kanagawa
Prefecture, which hosts a U.S. Navy base, held
emergency simulation drills Tuesday involving response to a possible
radiation leak accident by a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine
docking at the base.
It was the first time in Japan for a drill to be conducted based on
the scenario of a radiation leak from a U.S. nuclear submarine, city
officials said.
A total of about 400 people, including some 200 residents living near
the base, Self-Defense Forces personnel and Cabinet Office
officials took part, the officials said, adding that Yokosuka
subsequently put up a disaster headquarters and the Cabinet Office an
information office.
During the drill, local police officers and government personnel,
clad in protective gear, measured the amount of radiation in the air
at
18 spots in the city, while residents were also evacuated to check on
their exposure to radiation.
City officials said U.S. nuclear-powered submarines have made 686
port calls at the Yokosuka base since the first one in May 1966.
-----------------
Greenpeace stirs row over nuclear shipment
CAPE TOWN, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Greenpeace broadcast the location of
two ships carrying nuclear fuel off South Africa on Monday,
in a protest branded "grossly irresponsible" by British Nuclear
Fuels.
The environmental group's campaign ship M.V. Esperanza left Cape Town
on Saturday to look for the Pacific Pintail, which was
carrying a shipment of mixed oxide fuel known as MOX, and its escort,
the Pacific Teal.
"Greenpeace today caught up with a deadly cargo of plutonium off
South African waters and mounted a high seas protest just days
before the start of the Earth Summit in Johannebsurg," the Amsterdam-
based group said in a statement on Monday.
British Nuclear Fuels, owners of the two ships, slammed Greenpeace's
action, saying the group was grossly irresponsible to
broadcast the location of the ships travelling from Japan to Britain.
"Greenpeace used a publicly available radio channel to broadcast the
position of our vessels," the company said.
The M.V. Esperanza arrived in South African waters last week and will
stay in the area throughout the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, also known as the Earth Summit, which starts in
Johannesburg next week.
More than 60 heads of state and government and at least 40,000
delegates are expected to attend the 10-day summit looking for a
formula to ensure human prosperity without further damage to the
planet.
Greenpeace had undertaken not to mount any protest that could
endanger the specially built nuclear fuels carrier and did not say
what form Monday's protest took.
"The nuclear industry may try to run, but they cannot hide the fact
that they are endangering the environment, lives and livelihoods of
millions of people by shipping their deadly and discredited cargo
around the world," Greenpeace spokesman Tom Clements said in a
statement from the ship.
BNF said Greenpeace had published false information about the
material being carried aboard the Pacific Pintail and about plans for
future shipments.
The company said it was likely to make 10 shipments over the next
decade and not 100 as it said Greenpeace had claimed.
"Greenpeace's deliberate campaign of disinformation is dangerous and
calculated only to inflame, not inform, and they should be condemned
for that," BNF said.
-------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle
Director, Technical
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100 Extension 2306
Fax:(714) 668-3149
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
************************************************************************
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/