[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Response to WashPost ltr
Charles,
I was involved in the shipping cask tests performed by Sandia and developed
the explosive dispersal relationship between spent fuel and depleted
uranium. We then used depleted uranium in the casks we blew up, dropped,
shot rockets into, etc. Dispersal of spent fuel was modeled based on the
spent to depleted relationship. Three elements did not follow the particle
size distribution of the bulk material in the spent fuel. Cesium, antimony
and ruthenium. It is likely that iodine and tellurium did not follow the
bulk distribution, but the data were inconclusive. The three were very
similar in distribution and produced more small particles below 2
micrometers activity aerodynamic diameter than the other radionuclides. The
activity below 2 micrometers was on the order of 5% of the total respective
activity.
The 2 micrometer and below particles did not persist for very long because
they quickly attached to larger particles. An explosion is very dusty and
presents an enormous surface area for attachment. Small particles are very
mobile and find the surfaces almost immediately. The large particles
settled quickly so there was little dispersion of the material ejected from
the shipping casks. The result of the shipping cask study was that we could
predict should a cask be attacked in New York City, 400 people would die
from the explosion and there would be neither short-term nor long-term
effects from the radiation.
To your question concerning compounds of cesium. During an explosion, the
temperature is high enough to dissociate most cesium compounds. The
explosive gases cool quickly so most reactive elements stablize within
seconds. We also blew up a small tank of sodium for a heat exchanger
project. The sodium oxidized then reacted with the CO2 in the atmosphere to
become sodium carbonate within feet of the explosion.
In general it does not matter what the compounds are. The material folowing
the explosion is particulate and readily vacuumed up or washed away
following an explosion.
As Ted said, dirty bombs are impractical and there are more mundane hazards
to worry about. The problem is that our government and regulators advertize
that dirty bombs are radiological hazards and long-term problems. If they
keep it up, some terrorist (domestic or foreign) will finally believe them
and give it a try. Our job is to get the correct information out so that
terroist will not bother trying and the public will not panic if they do.
Joe
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:13:40 -0400, Charles Pennington
<cpennington@nacintl.com> wrote:
> 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