[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Response to WashPost ltr
Dear Mr. Ted Rockwell and friends:
I sent also an article to Washington Post to response the issue of dirty
bomb and nuclear accidnts (as attachment); but I think it is highly
impossible to be accepted, so I email at the time to my friends for their
reference. In case some of my ideas could be accepted by a few friends, my
part dream would become true, and I believe my dream would benefit whole
human beings.!
Best regards,
Y.C. Luan
------------------------- original messages-------------------
>From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>
>To: "Charles Pennington" <cpennington@NACINTL.COM>, <jalvarez@auxier.com>
>CC: <owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>, "RADSAFE"
><owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>, "Rad-Sci-L"
><rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>, "S. Fred Singer" <singer@sepp.org>
>Subject: RE: Response to WashPost ltr
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:29:22 -0400
>
>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
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
washpost.doc