[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Response to WashPost ltr
Tx for the info on cesium chloride.
I am interested in cesium that might be used in a dirty bomb (and obtained
from spent fuel?) rather than cesium released from a reactor accident
Best Fred
At 06:13 PM 9/22/2003 -0400, Charles Pennington 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
>
>
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
***********