Re: Making it real

["Mike Fox" <foxy1@owt.com>]

Ted:

Sorry for the delay in responding.  First, a parable, which actually

happened to me (can parables be true???).  As many graduate students are

wont to do, I was seated at the bar in the Iron Bull Tavern in the U.

District of the University of Washington, about 1964.  A chap sat down

beside me and showed me a number of those famous tavern puzzles, with

matches, coins, or logic problems, etc.  For a dollar or so each, he showed

me the answers to the tricks.



After taking a couple of bucks from me, I asked him about the revenues he

generated from these tavern activities.  He then proceeded to tell me his

personal philosophy about it.  He said "Do you recall the saying that a fool

and his money are soon parted?"  I said yes.  Well he said his philosophy

was that "It was immoral NOT to separate a fool from his money!!"



As someone retired from the nuclear industry and active on many fronts of

science communications, this philosophy pretty much describes many in the

nuclear industry.  It is not in the commercial interest of hundreds of

companies  to support, let alone fight for, a rational basis for regulating

radiation doses.  Simply put the tighter the regs (no matter how

indefensible) the more revenues are generated for these industries to

consume. For the record I am not exempting the lying green swine for the 30

years of massive public fear they and their media lapdogs have created.



The same applies for many utilities.  They don't fight the LNT simply

because they can usually get the easier approvals of the PUCs to pass the

inflated compliance costs through to the ratepayers.  The NRC has on

occasion appeared with the utilities at PUC hearings for added legitimacy!!

Obviously to fight the LNT would also incur bad PR, which is a second reason

for laying down.  The ratepayers get screwed of course, but they think

(because they have been told by an unintelligent media) they are buying

added safety measures, which they aren't.  What we have on our hands is yet

another example of the Baptists and the bootleggers.  With the eager help of

major media the greens scare the hell out of the public, and the dubious

corporations and utilities help spend the requisite 10s of billions to

"protect" the public from all of that harm!!!  Its been quite a team effort,

and the ratepayers and taxpayers pick up the tab. And as a later day Nero,

the DOE pushes windmills, incredible.



My real point for this e:mail is this.  You asked for a suggestion or two.

As a good starting point for you I direct your attention to the GAO Report

"Nuclear Health and Safety: Consensus on Acceptable Risk to the Public is

Lacking, RCED-94-190, Sept. 19, 1994".  In figure 24, the report lists 15

different radiation standards or guidelines and the agencies responsible.

These are not necessarily a complete federal set, nor do they include any of

the various state regulations.



Further the table includes the calculated lifetime risk (from presumed LNT

considerations) of premature cancer death for lifetime exposures at the

various 15 different limits.  The range of risks derived from these various

radiation dose limits is an amazing 38,000.  If the LNT were applied

consistently we'd expect a range of around 1!!! After all radiation is a

single "threat" to a single target, humans.

Thus, the situation is worse than we think.  Not only is the indefensible

LNT inflicted upon an unknowing society, it is applied inconsistently.

Political agendas are at work, not science.  And the regulators don't even

blush.

Mike Fox



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

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

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

<owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:13 PM

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

>

>

>

>