[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