Re: Response to WashPost ltr

[Charles Pennington <cpennington@nacintl.com>]

Joe



Excellent response.  Thanks very much!  I fully concur with Ted's 

assessment, as well.  But the factual basis, as you have presented, is a 

"must have" in any rational discussion, even with bureaucrats, regulators, 

or idiots.



Thanks again!

Charlie









"Joseph L. Alvarez" <jalvarez@auxier.com>

Sent by: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU

09/23/2003 09:01 AM

Please respond to jalvarez



 

        To:     Charles Pennington <cpennington@NACINTL.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>, Ted 

Rockwell <tedrock@starpower.net>

        Subject:        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!