[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Response to Ted Rockwell's article
One question is what kind of information is being
given to first responders? NCRP 116, "Limitation of
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation," recommends 0.5 Sv (50
rad?) ED for occupational workers in life-saving
situations. NCRP 138, "Management of Terrorist Events
Involving Radioactive Material," uses this same
guidelines for first responders. Are first responders
occupational workers?
P.S. I really hate Sv being used for ED and DE.
--- John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> This letter appeared in today's Washington Post
> --------------
> Radiation: The Real Deal
>
> Theodore Rockwell ["Radiation Chicken Little,"
> op-ed, Sept. 16] recalls a recent National Academy
> of
> Engineering "dirty bomb" drill as yet another piece
> of
> evidence that our fears of radiation are overblown.
> As
>
> a technical adviser to the drill's designers, I
> understand Rockwell's frustration. Radiation is not
> as
> dangerous as most people imagine.
>
> Yet Rockwell's own characterization of the dirty
> bomb
> threat is misleading. Most realistic assessments of
> dirty bomb dangers emphasize that few if any will
> die
> from an attack. Instead, the danger is long-term
> contamination, carrying with it social and economic
> costs. Rockwell dismisses such concerns.
>
> First, he contends that we will insist upon "a
> hypothetical, squeaky-clean condition, scrubbing the
> ground and sidewalks down to far less than the
> natural
> radiation background of God's good green Earth," a
> constraint that he deems "inappropriate." He is
> right
> that imposing strict EPA cleanup standards after a
> dirty bomb attack would, from a public health
> standpoint, be excessive. But easily imaginable
> dirty
> bomb scenarios would contaminate substantial areas
> to
> several hundred times those strict thresholds -- and
> to 10 or more times the "natural radiation
> background"
> Rockwell cites.
>
> Imagine a crude, inefficient dirty bomb using the
> amount of cesium found in an old Soviet radiation
> source, such as one of those your paper has reported
> are missing in Eastern Europe. If people did not
> leave
> the area permanently, and if the area surrounding
> the
> attack could not be cleaned up, one in 10 residents
> over an area of roughly 20 city blocks would die of
> cancer as a result of the attack -- 50 percent more
> than typically do. The radiation levels would be
> roughly 1,000 times higher than the EPA's
> "squeaky-clean condition."
>
> Rockwell claims that "you would flush any residual
> radioactivity down the drain with hoses and be done
> with it." But cesium chemically attaches to glass,
> concrete and asphalt -- and it does so quickly. If
> done quickly, washing off sidewalks might remove
> half
> of the contamination, but removing the rest would
> require special chemical procedures or abrasive
> techniques, which would introduce major safety,
> logistics and cost challenges.
>
> Nuclear power is also on Rockwell's radar, and he
> is
> right to be incensed by "public interest" group
> claims
> that terrorists could turn nuclear power plants into
> "weapons of mass destruction" -- they could do
> nothing of the sort. But Rockwell goes further,
> citing
> a Science article (which he co-wrote) as evidence
> that
> "one can do nothing to an American-type nuclear
> power
> plant or its fuel that would create a serious public
> health hazard." That study has been widely disputed,
> including by Sandia National Laboratory, upon whose
> experiments the Science article was based. And the
> Science article never discusses attacks on stored
> fuel, probably the greatest worry of those who study
> power-plant vulnerability. It considers only attacks
> on fuel during shipment, while that fuel is
> heavily protected.
>
> Rockwell is right that "if you tell people there
> is
> no danger, and they have no reason to disbelieve
> you,
> they will remain calm."
>
> But if you tell people there is no danger, and
> instead there is only a small one, they will lose
> faith, assume the worst and panic. The real dangers
> of
> dirty bombs and power-plant attacks are not nearly
> as
> horrific as many imagine. We should be able to calm
> people by simply telling them the truth.
>
> -- Michael A. Levi
>
> Washington
>
> The writer is science and technology fellow in
> foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.
>
> Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go
> to
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=A37571-2003Sep19&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle
>
=====
"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law."
Louis D. Brandeis, Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. U.S., 1928
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.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/