Re: Response to WashPost ltr

[Charles Pennington <cpennington@nacintl.com>]

Ted



Well said.  I also sent a very brief response to the Post on Sunday.  See 

below.



Charlie



Letter to the Editor



Radiation in Comparative Terms



Theodore Rockwell's piece ("Radiation Chicken Little," op-ed, Sept. 16) is 

a simply-stated presentation of fact.  Indeed, he has been careful to 

understate his case by not providing some comparative information that is 

even more enlightening.  Then, Michael Levi of the Brookings Institution 

("Radiation: The Real Deal," Letter to the Editor, Sept. 20) has chosen to 

"de-clarify" the matter by at least implying that Rockwell has overstated 

the case, and by stating that all we must do is tell people the truth (of 

which, I assume, he means that the "drill" addressed by Rockwell is 

suitably representative).



The facts are that millions of Americans (forget the rest of the world) 

receive far more radiation dose each year from non-nuclear technologies than might occur from a dirty bomb, a 

terrorist attack on a spent fuel pool, or from a reactor accident at a 

Western-style reactor.  This annual level of population exposure is 

several multiples of that to the Former Soviet Union population from the 

Chernobyl accident, and has been occurring for many decades, if not more 

than a century.  Further, these population doses are from radionuclides 

that are more hazardous, by the EPA's own accounting, than the cesium 137, 

about which Mr. Levi tends to fear-monger.  Finally, a number of studies 

in the U.S. and elsewhere show that these very high population doses from 

non-nuclear technology radionuclide exposures have not resulted in any excess cancer deaths, as Mr. Levi claims will happen with 

a dirty bomb.



While we certainly must prepare ourselves for potential terrorist events, 

we must also properly inform the public that, except for those in close 

proximity to any explosion, the near term and long term health effects 

from any "nuclear contamination" resulting from such events are absolutely 

minimal.



Charles W. Pennington

Alpharetta, GA



The writer has more than 35 years of experience involving nuclear energy 

and has more than two decades of experience in nuclear spent fuel storage 

and transport system design, analysis, licensing, and operation.











"Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>

Sent by: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU

09/22/2003 12:13 PM



 

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

<rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>

        cc:     (bcc: Charles Pennington/NAC_Intl)

        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.