RE: LNT and resources [Was: Scientific responsibility]

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Ted,

I hear a lot of comments about what we would save.  I

am looking for concrete examples as opposed to open

ended statements like "we are wasting resources."  I

think that in many cases this is a visceral feeling

without content.  Does D&D cost that exorbinant

compared to toxic waste clean-up? For new

constructions, does shielding add significant (which

is obviously subjective term) cost?   Do you have any

example of the charge:  "Some hospitals shut down 

nuclear medicine facilities because of the draconian

requirements for controling dose levels from sources

presumed safe inside a person's body are somehow

dangerous in urine disposal systems."  That is a broad

charge, and certainly one the plays well but may lack

truth. I certainly try to avoid exaggerated and untrue

statements since they reduce my credibility.  



I think that your comments about Chernobyl have some

validity.  However, how does this compare to

evaluating an area after a spill of chlorine or toxic

gas?  What are the short and long term economic

impacts?  Do you think the 100,000 abortions is an

exaggeration parallel to the 50,000 deaths from

Chernobyl?  



--- Ted Rockwell <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG> wrote:

> John:

> 

> Can't think of how dropping LNT will make a

> difference?  Try some big ones:

> They could have moved only a few people out of the

> Chernobyl area, and moved

> them back soon after.  Assure them that this amount

> of radiation will not

> hurt them.  Result? Avoid the greatly increased

> suicide, depression,

> alcoholism and unemployment now seen.  Plus

> $billions of compensation costs

> for "Chernobyl victims" by a government teetering on

> the brink of financial

> ruin.

> 

> Assuring Europeans that that the trivial radiation

> levels in the Chernobyl

> fallout is harmless might have prevented the

> estimated 100,000 additional

> induced abortions downwind.

> 

> Now apply that to US NPP evacuation plans.  The

> Indian Point power plant may

> well be closed down because FEMA rightly states that

> evacuating millions of

> people out of that area in a hurry is unworkable. 

> Some hospitals shut down

> nuclear medicine facilities because of the draconian

> requirements for

> controling dose levels from sources presumed safe

> inside a person's body are

> somehow dangerous in urine disposal systems.

> 

> Thinking only of protecting health, after a dirty

> bomb with Cs one would

> wash the stuff down the storm sewers and life would

> go on.  The residual

> contamination would be no more troublesome than from

> a serious oil or

> chemical spill.  But current guidelines would cordon

> off the region for

> decades, enabling some lucky corporations and

> scientists to glean billions

> of dollars for no benefit and giving terrorists the

> satisfaction of having

> really caused us pain.

> 

> Etc.  Do you really not understand this??

> 

> This is particularly egregious when the NCRP reports

> adopted as

> justification for this practice concede that the

> science does not provide

> any evidence of harm from LDR and that "most

> populations exposed to LDR do

> not show deleterious effects and most show

> beneficial effects."  So it can

> be justified only as "prudent."  Does this really

> strike you as prudent?

> 

. . .



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

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/