Re: Response to WashPost ltr

["Mike Fox" <foxy1@owt.com>]

Ted:

You are right.  At the risk of piling on, if the Cs, Sr, and Co were to

firmly attached to such surfaces as concrete, glass, etc., it would make the

perfect waste forms suitable for permanent disposal.  But they don't and

they aren't.  Mr. Levi seems to want it both ways, which is nothing new for

this crowd.  I spent a number of years working in the development such waste

forms.

Mike



----- Original Message -----

From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>

To: "RADSAFE" <owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; "Rad-Sci-L"

<rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:13 AM

Subject: Response to WashPost ltr





> Friends:

>

> I just sent the following words to the Letters Ed, WashPost.  It's awfully

> brief, but I think that gives it the maximum chance (still small) of

getting

> published. Of course, a letter from a third party, such as a State Nuclear

> Engineer or other august official, would probably carry more weight.  :-)

>

> Ted Rockwell

> ____________________________________________

>

> Michael Levi agrees (Letters, Sept.20) with the main point of my column

> ("Radiation Chicken Little," Sept 16).  He says, "Radiation is not as

> dangerous as most people imagine."  But he makes two serious factual

errors.

>

> He says residual contamination "would introduce major safety, logistics

and

> cost challenges" and "one in 10 residents...would die of cancer as a

> result."  This is simply untrue.  He gets this number by multiplying a

very

> small individual risk by a very large number of people presumed to be

> exposed.  This process of "predicting" deaths has been judged

scientifically

> invalid by every responsible radiation authority.  If no individual

receives

> a harmful dose, then no one is harmed.

>

> Levi says radioactivity "chemically attaches to glass, concrete and

asphalt"

> and would not be removed by high-pressure water hoses.  But then it would

> not be a health hazard--unless one eats the concrete!

>

> Levi talks about radiation levels "ten times the natural radiation

> background."  But there are many places in the world where people live

> healthily in even higher radiation background--up to 100 times average.

>

> Radioactivity is like any other contaminant--it is not mysterious, unknown

> or unnatural.  We should clean it up to whatever level warrants the cost.

> But our judgment should be based on well-established health risk data, not

> on idoelogically based "zero-tolerance" regulations.

>

>

>

>