[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dirty bomb article (Nature)
Fritz et al,
This technique is an old ploy used by anti's and fundseekers to
stimulate concern over nuclear power. It simply assumes that ,in a nuclear
accident, radioactivity will be released with an aerosol dispersal
efficiency so high that it would be unattainable even if it we tried
engineer its occurance.
I believe the approach was first used in the 1960's when BNL produced
the WASH-740 report on nuclear accidents. They were uncertain as to what the
"source term", or fractional release of radionuclides would be in case of a
reactor accident. They knew it had to be greater than 0% and less than 100%,
so they compromised and assumed 50%. (Isn't science wonderful). Perhaps for
the more volitile nuclides, this assumption wasn't so bad, but for the
transuranics and most fission product it was a gross overestimate. Anyway,
using this source term estimate and detailed meteorological calculations
they estimated several thousands of deaths would result. Despite the
Rasmussen Study, TMI, and Chernobyl , many people still believe this would
be the case.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Fritz A. Seiler <faseiler@NMIA.COM>
To: Wright, Will (DHS-PSB) <WWright2@DHS.CA.GOV>;
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers@HOTMAIL.COM>
Cc: Joseph L. Alvarez <jalvarez@auxier.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: Dirty bomb article (Nature)
> Hi All,
>
> Having spent 10 years in an aerosol science environment at the
> old Lovelace ITRI, I am aware of all your points. However, that is
> not the main aim of my comment. My main point of attack was the fact
> that the physicists quoted did not take the basic facts of aerosol
> science into account and their support sounds to me like a knee jerk
> reaction. There was no indication that they were aware of any points
> in your answer.
> Your answer sounds a little bit like an agreement with the trend
> of the article but the fact is that we don't know anything about the
> aerosols involved. Being honest, we therefore have to say that we just
> don't know how dangerous the aerosolized portion of a dirty bomb would
> be.
>
> Best
>
> Fritz
>
> *****************************************************
> Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
> Sigma Five Consulting: Private:
> P.O. Box 1709 P.O. Box 437
> Los Lunas, NM 87031 Tome', NM 87060
> Tel.: 505-866-5193 Tel. 505-866-6976
> Fax: 505-866-5197 USA
> *****************************************************
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of Wright, Will
> (DHS-PSB)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:55 PM
> To: Fritz A. Seiler; radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu; Bjorn Cedervall
> Cc: Joseph L. Alvarez
> Subject: RE: Dirty bomb article (Nature)
>
>
> you are correct regarding the behavior of the particle at 100(some
pollen)
> which by definition is not an aerosol as well as the 10 u which is an
> aerosol. however, they are both readily inhalable and 10 remains perhaps
> suspended for some time, but they differ in that the 100 is easily
removed
> through clearance mechanisms because they get no further than the throat
or
> nasal passage but 10 gets deeper and many remain in lower respiratory
tract.
>
> the 100 is readily swallowed.
> these particles may not be as dense as sand and thus demonstrate
different
> aerodynamic behavors due to nonspherical shape. from a risk assessment
point
> of view this size particle is a problem especially under the
circumstances
> under discussion.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fritz A. Seiler [mailto:faseiler@NMIA.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:25 PM
> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; Bjorn Cedervall
> Cc: Joseph L. Alvarez
> Subject: RE: Dirty bomb article (Nature)
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Here again is a beautiful example of knowing just enough to be
> dangerous! In my career as a nuclear physicist I did not come
> into real contact with aerosol science until I leaned about it
> as an NBC(Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare) officer in
> the Swiss Army. Due to its 'National Guard' nature, we had all
> kinds of scientists in the NBC defense service. I doubt very
> much that the physicists cited in Nature were aware just how
> difficult it is to make an inhalable aerosol even in a powerful
> chemical explosion. In the Goiana incident we obviously had to
> deal with a ready made powder with an unknown spectrum of particle
> sizes, and the dirty bomb would produce an equally unkown spectrum.
> The two cases can, therefore, not be used to evaluate each other's
> consequences. Remember, a particle of about 100 micrometers or more
> is a fine grain of sand that has a tendency to fall right past your
> face without negotiating the turn needed to enter your mouth or nose.
> The best size for inhalation lies at aerodynamic diameters below 10
> micrometers or so. In the book Joe Alvarez and I are writing, we
> present the reader with a dirty bomb problem that hinges on his
> ability to aerosolize a monelclad RaBe source by a shaped explosion.
> You can have quite a bit of fun with that! What you need essentially
> is the knowledge of an explosive specialist and those do not grow on
> trees.
>
> Funny how little expertise you need to scare many people!
>
> Best
>
> Fritz
>
> *****************************************************
> Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
> Sigma Five Consulting: Private:
> P.O. Box 1709 P.O. Box 437
> Los Lunas, NM 87031 Tome', NM 87060
> Tel.: 505-866-5193 Tel. 505-866-6976
> Fax: 505-866-5197 USA
> *****************************************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of Bjorn Cedervall
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 2:51 PM
> To: radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
> Subject: Dirty bomb article (Nature)
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/nsu/040503/040503-3.html
>
> FYI & best regards,
>
> Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/