|
Ted -
Sounds like we're on the same page. Yes, in the context of "real" deaths
and injuries, as opposed to "hypothetical, maybe some time in the future,
statistical" deaths, nuclear facilities (including spent fuel and HRCQ
shipments) do look pretty good.
I haven't read the full article yet (I've been waiting for somebody to
violate copyright and post it, but so far, no takers) so I guess I'll have to go
out and buy the magazine.
Jim
>>> "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@cpcug.org> 9/23/2002 16:09:59 >>> 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. |