[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Response to Ted Rockwell's article
I agree. These are all difficult questions with no simple or "best" answer.
A possible (conservative) suggestion is that all first-responders should be
equipped with alarming dosimeters unless a radiological hazard has been
ruled-out by a competent authority (ideally one of the first-responders on
the scene). This is similar to first-responders assessing chemical hazards
beforehand so it is nothing new, just adding a radiological check in case of
possible terrorism at play. Local authorities should already have lists of
all known possible radiological hazards and their locations.
I think that the NCRP has set appropriate guidelines. People choosing to
ignore or re-interpret these guidelines do so at their own peril
(physically, politically, and possibly legally).
My opinions only.
Grant
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:04 PM
To: NIXON, Grant (Kanata); radsafe; know_nukes
Subject: RE: Response to Ted Rockwell's article
Grant,
Thanks for reminding me. However, to continue my
questioning, how would the first responders initially
know that a significant radiological hazard exists?
Do all first responders have alarming dosimeters? How
about if they are responding to an explosion or fire
in a building? Would they be expected to have
alarming dosimeters?
On another point, what if the first responders are
planning to use alarm levels one-tenth of the values
you quote? Would this hamper rescue operations?
These are issue I think that need to be considered.
--- "NIXON, Grant (Kanata)" <GNIXON@MDS.Nordion.com>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> This is similar to a previous post we had (Ken
> Smith, Tuesday, July 29, 2003
> 7:42 PM).
>
> I think that this 50 rem level would apply only to
> first-responders that are
> "knowingly involved" in a life-saving/rescue
> activity, like occupational
> workers, directly saving people.
>
> NCRP-138 recommends the following personal DRD alarm
> levels (see pp. 97-98,
> Sect, 8.4) for responders:
>
> Initial alarm level: 0.1 mSv/h (10 mrem/h) - [to be
> used as an alert level]
> turn-around level: 0.1 Sv/h (10 rem/h) and a dose of
> 0.1 Sv (10 rem) [to be
> used as an alarm].
>
> This seems to imply a 10 rem dose for
> first-responders who are not otherwise
> directly involved in the task of saving a human life
> (like non-occupational
> workers) but carrying-out emergency work
> nonetheless.
>
> Grant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:55 AM
> To: radsafe; know_nukes
> Subject: 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
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
"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/