|
Bernie -
Apology accepted.
You're absolutely correct that the bulk of CsCl deposited will not remain
in place, even if we do nothing. The first good rain will relocate a lot of it,
probably to where we don't want it ... but some amount will remain "trapped",
and some will become "trapped" while being relocated. Some of us with combined
sewer overflows (CSO's) may wind up with CsCl concentrating in our sewage
treatment plants. Wherever rainwater or washwater stands and evaporates, you can
expect to see elevated concentrations. As time goes on, more and more material
will be relocated and concentrations will more than likely become more
non-uniform. Thus, you've got a time-dependent non-uniform pattern of
"re-deposition" (if you like that term) that may be difficult to model. There
will be an awful lot of environmental monitoring going on to keep track of where
the cesium is and how much of it remains.
The bottom line for me is that, in my humble opinion, anybody who assumes
that we can simply wash down surfaces and buildings, administratively declare
them "clean" (as government officials) and go on about our lives as if nothing
happened is seriously deluding him/herself. We (the radiation protection
"industry" as a whole) will be spending a lot of time, energy and yes, money ...
determining what areas are contaminated (or more importantly, what areas are NOT
contaminated). We'll be spending an awful lot of time "nibbling at the edges"
defining the boundaries between "contaminated" and "clean", and we may even
disagree as to the definition of those terms (imagine that ... radiation
protection professionals arguing amongst themselves! How novel!)
Jim Hardeman
>>> BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@pitt.edu> 2/28/2003 13:51:59 >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Jim Hardeman wrote: > Bernie ¯ > > Unless you spent many 80+ hour weeks in the RSI decontamination effort as I did, I would caution you from making snide comments about the findings of the decontamination effort. I will attempt to address your comments in a professional manner. --My sincere apologies. I did not mean to be disrespectful. I am sure you know infinitely more about the subject than I. I meant my comments as responses to the calculations presented in the media about how many people will eventually die from the dispersal. I believe they assume no clean-up, and I was trying to establish that the bulk of the radioactivity would not remain in place. I was trying to gather info that would help me write something on that subject. I was not questioning anything you said about the matter. A few comments on misunderstandings. My suggestion about tasting by tongue referred to the salt dispersed to melt ice and later splashed onto soil and buildings. That would be a very sensitive way of testing for residual salt. I know that the original Hanford tanks were not stainless steel, but when leaks occurred, I believe they used stainless steel either there or at West Valley for later tanks. Again, I have no quarrel with your wisdom on this matter and apologize if my remarks seemed like I did. But I would still like to know what fraction of the amount deposited is not removed by prompt efforts at removal so I can calculate expected effects of a dispersal, correcting the scare stories. |