|
No, it's not as easy as walking around with a
survey meter. But there are lots of people who know how to identify
pathways, collect samples, and make appropriate measurements. Gamma
spectroscopy identifies those radionuclides that aren't part of the natural
environment. Air, water, and crop samples can tell you if radioactive
material really is finding it's way to the public. These
activities happen around large nuclear facilities every day. So
it's far from an insurmountable feat, and it beats the heck out of
neverending insinuation and speculation.
The point that Mr. Hess made very well, though, is
that if there is a potential problem, there should be known and direct
methods to identify the problem and it's magnitude. And there are.
And using such methods is the straightforward approach of those who
truly want to identify and resolve problems.
Those who are more interested in perpetuating a
"cause" will reject straightforward approaches, because they don't want real
information out where the public can see it. They would lose support
if that happened. They prefer to tell scary stories about invisible
nuclear menaces, and exploit the misery of people who are suffering from
illnesses. Do you ever hear such people insisting that the cause
of a supposed public health risk be found no matter what it is?
If they are that concerned, why do they ignore and reject the advice
of experts who really know how to answer the
questions?
This is why you never hear a response from them
when one of us says let's quit fooling around with speculation and get to
facts.
Come to think of it, there is one situation where
the opponents would insist on actual measurements from the experts
- they would demand real numbers IF THEY REALLY BELIEVED SOMETHING
WAS THERE. Hmmm...so what does it mean when they change the subject
or ignore suggestions for real facts and data?
Vincent King
Grand Junction, CO
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:43
PM
Subject: Re: Background radiation, Geiger
counters, and health effects
In a message dated 6/5/2003 1:15:56 PM Pacific Standard
Time, lists@richardhess.com
writes:
Isn't it a trivial matter to measure radiation in many
areas--walk around
with a Geiger counter in the simplest form--and
compare this to background?
Oh, if only it were
trivial. The problem is that one can walk around with a survey meter,
and find background ranging from 5 microR per hour to 10 microR per hour
within a few feet, depending on the geology of the area (and much more
dramatic variations can be found in many areas). This additional 5
microR per hour, theoretically, presents an additional 5 x 8760 hours per year
= 43 millirem per year, or almost half the public dose limit from licensed
operations, and almost twice the dose limit from terminated operations.
Is it from "natural" sources? Or from "man-made" sources? It is
very expensive to find this out, particularly when one is talking about a
potentially residually-contaminated site that may cover several hundred
acres.
And, we haven't even gotten to the tricky part - i.e., the other
pathways. External radiation is only one component of potential exposure
from a "contaminated" site - there may be dose from the migration of
contamination to groundwater that ultimately contributes to a drinking water
supply, or from the uptake of soil contamination in local vegetation eaten by
humans, or by the animals that humans ultimately eat, or there may be
resuspension of surface contamination (i.e., kicking up dust) creating an
inhalation pathway, and, of course, there is always Justice Breyer's favorite
pathway - the dirt-eating children. Assessing the transfer of
contamination through these pathways is an extremely expensive proposition,
even with the assistance of the dose-modeling software that
exists.
This is why the question of whether the LNT is truly the
"conservative" assumption should be re-evaluated. The public needs to
understand the real costs of assessing, let alone remediating, contamination
that could theoretically produce doses in the range of background, and in the
range of the natural variation of background, but yet are above the "legal"
limits.
If it were as simple as going out and swinging a meter through
someone's home to satisfy their fears, I think most HPs I know would be more
than happy to devote some time to this, but the problem is not at all that
simple.
Barbara
|