|
Jim:
Referring to your msg: no argument. My
definition of a serious public health hazard is a situation in which large
numbers of people are apt to get significantly more than the 25rem "tolerable"
dose. If they can be easily moved out to a lower dose area, of course they
should be. And I consider that a very conservative criterion. In
another [non-nuclear] situation, a number of people might get concussions and
broken limbs, and these would be characterized as "minor injuries."
The context for a terrorist situation is a
large number of prompt deaths or debilitating injuries. There are
literally thousands of ways a terrorist could achieve that result, without
having to crack a tightly guarded nuclear facility. We maintain that
nuclear facilities look good, judged in that context.
Ted Rockwell
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:54 PM To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu Subject: RE: AJC Article: Nuclear plants can withstand attacks Ted -
I don't know your definition of "tolerable" (maybe you're talking about
NRC's siting rules) but given current federal emergency response guidance, a
responsible state radiological official would be hard pressed NOT to recommend
that individuals in the vicinity of a ruptured spent fuel cask be evacuated (or
at a minimum, sheltered in place) given your estimate of a 1 rem dose, unless
there were "extenuating circumstances" such as an ice storm, a hurricane, etc.
which would make evacuation more hazardous in and by itself.
My $0.02 worth ...
Jim Hardeman
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. |