[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Response to WashPost ltr
I think the number of scenarios is very large and could support many
scientists for many years. But for what purpose? I think it's agreed that
dirty bombs are ineffective weapons. The only damage they can do is if we
let them create needless panic. Even that would be pretty limited.
The real impact of such weapons is to keep us worrying right now about such
things instead of getting on with our lives. While you're worrying about
that, you could get run over by a wayward pizza delivery car.
Ted Rockwell
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Pennington [mailto:cpennington@nacintl.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:14 PM
To: jalvarez@auxier.com
Cc: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU; RADSAFE; Rad-Sci-L; S. Fred Singer; Ted
Rockwell
Subject: Re: Response to WashPost ltr
Thanks for this bit of insight!!
I am also curious about non-CsCl sources. If you had more of a spent fuel
source with Cs as a volatile at some partial pressure, it would tend to form
other compounds at the elevated temperatures before and during dispersion
and cooling. Can you say what those compounds might be and what their
chemical properties are?? I know they are not the same as what might occur
for a reactor accident. Also, the temperature must control the adsorption
coefficient of Cs, as well as its reaction rate, on most surfaces. Granted,
an explosion or other exothermic event raises the temperature, and "bonding"
in the vicinity of the event is almost unavoidable. But for points removed
from the event or downwind, cooling is rapid and I would think adsorption
and reaction rates would be much slower, allowing time for effective
removal.
Thanks again!
"Joseph L. Alvarez" <jalvarez@auxier.com>
Sent by: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
09/22/2003 04:02 PM
Please respond to jalvarez
To: "S. Fred Singer" <singer@sepp.org>, Ted Rockwell
<tedrock@starpower.net>, RADSAFE <owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>,
Rad-Sci-L <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
cc: (bcc: Charles Pennington/NAC_Intl)
Subject: Re: Response to WashPost ltr
Cesium in the radiology sources is usually as the chloride. It acts very
much like table salt. If it does not rain, you can readily vacuum it off
most surfaces (it will be mixed with the organics from the explosive). If
it does rain, add more water and keep it moving. Nevertheless, Levi is
right to some degree. If you leave the CsCl for a long time the cesium and
the chlorine slowly react with just about everything. Some very
interesting
complexes form on most surfaces, some of which are very recalcitrant. What
can't be easily removed after several days (if you wait that long) will be
minor and produce a low, but not squeaky clean dose rate.
Joe
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:38:30 -0400, S. Fred Singer <singer@sepp.org>
wrote:
> Levi may be wrong also in assuming that Cesium be released in its
atomic
> form and therefore able to "attack"' .
>
> This is no my specialty, but I would assume that it will be in some less
> active molecular form .
>
> Does anyone have the answer?
>
> Fred Singer
>
> PS My ltr to WP is appended
>
> *********
>
>
> As Theodore Rockwell observes ("Radiation Chicken Little," Sept 16),
> ensuring
> public safety in the face of terrorism requires a realistic assessment
of
> potential threats. Exaggerated scenarios create public panic and advance
> the
> aims of the terrorists.
>
> The so-called "dirty bomb" is a prime example. It is a device that
> disperses
> some radioactive material over a certain area. It is not a nuclear
> fission bomb
> or hydrogen bomb that causes a lethal blast (like any bomb) but also
> creates
> its own radioactivity. To construct a dirty bomb, one has to first
> assemble
> the radioactive material -- and
> that creates virtually insurmountable problems. Assume the bomb's size
> is
> about
> a square foot but that it should contaminate a square mile. Simple
> arithmetic
> shows that the required concentration factor is about 25 million. This
> concentrated
> radioactivity would melt most any container and would certainly kill the
> terrorists who try to assemble the device.
>
> S. Fred Singer
> Arlington
>
> 703-920-2744 singer@sepp.org
> *************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************
>
> At 12:13 PM 9/22/2003 -0400, Ted Rockwell wrote:
>> 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.
>
> S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
> President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
> 1600 S. Eads St., Suite 712-S
> Arlington, VA 22202-2907
> e-mail: singer@sepp.org Web: www.sepp.org
> Tel: 703-920-2744
> E-fax 815-461-7448; notify by e-mail before sending
> ******************************************
> "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses
> to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism
> is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
> > Thomas H. Huxley
> **********
> "If the facts change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, sir? "
> >J. M. Keynes
> ***********
>
>
>
--
J. L. Alvarez, PhD.,CHP
Auxier & Associates, Inc
9821 Cogdill Rd., Suite 1
Knoxville, TN 37932
Phone: 865-675-3669
FAX: 865-675-3677
email: jalvarez@auxier.com