Making it real

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>]

Friends:



I'm looking for a suggestion or two.  The nuclear community seems to have a

disconnect between how it describes the biological effects of low-dose

radiation and the rules it prescribes for radiation protection.  This

disconnect is exacerbated by the disconnect between how it "realistically"

describes the potential consequences of a nuclear casualty and the formal

requirements for handling such casualties.  If the release and dispersion of

radioactivity from a realistic worst case casualty are as limited as

described in the peer-reviewed 20 Sept 02 and 10 Jan 03 Science papers based

on the major EPRI and industry programs of the 1970s, and if the prediction

of deaths from radiation doses below 5 or 10 rad are scientifically invalid

as stated in ANS Position Statement 41 and the related HPS statement it

cites, then there are specific regulations and policies that should be

changed and others that perhaps need to be created.



For example, when DOE reports the latest fuel shipment casualty evaluation,

they "predict" a number of cancers.  When we ask why this is, Ruth Weiner

tells us that DOE requires that the result be reported in terms of cancers

calculated from collective dose, even though no individual dose would be

high enough to be harmful.  And there are DOE and NRC policies that measure

the quality of rad protection programs by how much they hold down total

collective dose, even though that provides a strong incentive to minimize

needed inspection and tests in radiation zones.  Similarly, when critics

argue that plants like Indian Point should be shut down, because it is

infeasible to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the area in a

few hours, it is ineffective to mutter that such an evacuation will probably

not be needed. If it is not, we should change the requirements now.  If we

need more information to make that judgment, we should quickly define just

what we need and go after it.



NOW TO MY QUESTION: What specific rules, regulations or practices should be

modified to reduce the differences between radiation reductions currently

required and those we could derive from a realistic appraisal of real-world

power plants and their fuel?



I don't want to get into arguing "whether this would be worth the effort" at

this point, and I don't expect anyone to have a complete list of such

documents.  At this stage, I'd just like some suggestions as to what kinds

of documents or policies would have to be examined.  Let's not worry, for

the moment, about how hard it would be to make the mod, or whether the

public would "buy it."



For now, let's just think about possible ways to start this process.  I'm

sure there are areas that have never occurred to me.  After a round or two

of preliminary consideration, then it will be time enough to start think

about what's worth doing and what simply isn't.  At present, it seems clear

that we have an enormous gap between situations we consider realistic and

what we are required to protect against.



Any ideas?



Thanks.



Ted Rockwell