RE: Making it real

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

Thanks, Andre.  I'd like to be kept informed on this.  If I can help, pls

let me know.



Ted Rockwell



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-rad-sci-l@wpi.edu [mailto:owner-rad-sci-l@wpi.edu]On Behalf

Of andre maisseu

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:35 AM

To: Ted Rockwell; Rad-Sci-L; RADSAFE

Subject: Re: Making it real





Ted,

The International Journal of Low Radiation will launch by the beginning of

next year a special issue dedicated to these topics. Will you like to be pat

of this action against obscurantism ?

André Maïsseu



----- Original Message -----

From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>

To: "Rad-Sci-L" <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>; "RADSAFE"

<owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:13 AM

Subject: Making it real





> 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

>

>

>