RE: Nuclear-powered spacecraft plan feared

["Grimm, Lawrence" <LGrimm@FACNET.UCLA.EDU>]

Radsafer's:  I sent the following to the Chronicle journalist who wrote the nuclear powered spacecraft article.  

 

Note that I am attacking the journalist's ethics.  If anything gets to a journalist, attacking his/her journalism ethics will do it.  It usually angers them at first, but often they think about it, and (over time) will present a better "balance".

 

Note that I describe Lyman as having a vested interest.  I believe that he does.  He sells fear, and makes a good living doing it.  This is a vested interest.  Because charlatans like Lyman present themselves to the public as "non-vested, public minded citizens", the public listens to them.  This image should always be countered/challenged as often as possible when you talk to the public or press. HOWEVER, be prepared to accept the same challenge.  As everything I do in radiation safety is funded by public money and I take no money for public speaking, it is easy for me to deflect the challenge.  If you work for a for-profit company, you will have a tougher time deflecting the counter challenge, and I don't recommend that you make the challenge in the first place.   

 

Larry Grimm, Senior HP 

UCLA EH&S/ Radiation Safety Division 

 

----------------

Mr.. Davidson:



If you wish to present a "balanced" article to the public, then I suggest that statements like the following:



"If there had been a nuclear reactor on board (the Columbia space 

shuttle), this debris field they're warning people not to come too close 

to would be a considerably bigger mess," said physicist Edward Lyman, 

head of the private Nuclear Control Institute in Washington, D.C." 



be balanced with statements, such as the following, which demonstrate that Edward Lyman (and his ilk) either have no clue, or are intentionally misleading people by manipulating their lack of knowledge about radiation and their subsequent fear. The following comes from a health physicist, like me, whose job in life is to protect people and not to scare them into donating to a cause. 



>From a Canadian heath physicist, whom I respect:



"A nuclear rocket might be fueled with about 100 lbs of Uranium-235 when its launched into orbit. That represents about 0.0036 Terabecquerels of radioactivity that could potentially be dispersed into the environment in case of a Columbia-type disaster (although its more likely to end up on the ground, similar to bolts & nuts).



How does that compare to a 'Chernobyl in the sky' ? 

The total amount of radioactivity released by the Chernobyl explosion was estimated at about 11,000,000 Terabecquerels, or about three billion times as much. That would be the equivalent, for example, of the Columbia space shuttle having a crew of 77 million astronauts, if we applied the same factor.



The amount of Plutonium-239 alone released by Chernobyl was about 26 Terabecquerels, or 7,200 times as much -- the equivalent of the Columbia space shuttle having a crew of 50,400 astronauts, if we applied the same factor.



This gives you some idea of the accuracy of the statements of physicist Edward Lyman, 

head of the private Nuclear Control Institute in Washington, D.C. "



To which I would add:



Edward Lyman's spin (facts mixed with fantasy) on the dangers of Plutonium are obviously designed to scare people into donating to his cause. A fact he neglects to say is that almost all Plutonium is insoluble, therefore our bodies do not take it up. Another fact he neglects to say is that there are a bunch of radiation workers in this country who actually have Plutonium in their bodies, and are doing just fine, thank you very much. A fact neglected is that Plutonium is a heavy metal, and like any "large" quantity of ingested heavy metal in soluble form, it poses a chemical risk that far exceeds the radiation risk. It takes very little lead (Pb) to give you lead poisoning. The same is true of Plutonium. If Lyman posed the (real) risk in chemical terms, instead of radiological terms, do you think people would be as scared? And donate as much to his cause? Does Lyman indicate that the Americium in every smoke detector has almost the same risk factors (chemically and radiological!

ly) as Plutonium when ingested? Why not? Because it would not help get donations. Note: the smoke detector's Americium is an insoluble form. Eat the source, and you will just poop it out a day later. 



I believe there are a lot of charlatans and frauds like Edward Lyman, within both the anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear industries. To quote vested "experts" is unethical and poor journalism - without a counter quote from a non-vested expert. 



************************************************************************

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/