RE: AJC Article: Nuclear plants can withstand attacks

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

> The statement "most nuclear advocates are reluctant to challenge such claims [of overstatement of harm from ionizing radiation]" does a major disservice to the many nuclear advocates, me among them. who have spoken out repeatedly and publicly, often at the risk of losing their livelihood and of other threats.   It is a "throwaway" comment, and really unworthy of the authors.

Ruth:

 

The fact that speaking the truth results in "risk of losing their livelihood and of other threats" illustrates the point we were trying to make, without intending to denigrate the efforts of the few like yourself who take on such risks.  The fact is, that neither NEI, nor ANS, HPS, nor individual utility officials or most others nuclearly knowledgeable have been willing to challenge the outrageous statements we see repeated by the media. I know of no responsible statement by nuclear advocates as to what might be expected under credible circumstances.

 

The purpose of our statement was not to claim that nuclear power is without risk or problems, but to state that it is limited by the same laws of nature and properties of materials that apply to other industrial activities. And these limit the health consequences of any credible event to a pretty small "disaster."  I've had several discussions with NRC Commissioner Nils Diaz on trying to get the NRC to make some statement that would limit the extent to which fatalities can be legitimately "predicted."  He said he is working on a statement that I can use publicly in my panel at the ANS conference in Washington in November.  He said the NRC cannot state that one cannot legitimately "predict" deaths by applying LNT to large numbers of people receiving tiny doses--that NRC is required by EPA to make such predictions.  But he said he was willing to state publicly that such predictions have no scientific basis, and he will do so. 

 

He said he now has money to have NRC redo the Sandia 1982 CRAC-2 "study" that predicted tens of thousands of deaths from each reactor accident and will come up with something more reasonable.  He agreed it was important to remove the validity of citing those figures as "government figures."

 

I suggest that these plans not be discussed publicly, and give him a chance to get something first.

 

As to what can be released from a ruptured shipping cask, I thought we agreed on the last go-around that the noble gases are not a serious health hazard and that we should not assume that all non-volatile activity is in highly respirable form.  In this case, I recall that the total dose to the most exposed person was about 1 rem. Do I remember that wrong?  If it's less than 25 rem, then it's still a tolerable emergency dose under today's rules, is it not?  And we should not predict any deaths in that situation.That's all we intended by our statement.

 

Pls let me know if I've misstated the situation. 

 

Ted Rockwell