RE: NRC on Realism

["yuan-chi luan" <nbcsoc@hotmail.com>]

Friends:



We do hope the radiological experience from the Co-50 contamination in 

Taiwan, could provide some different practical idea for the nuclear 

regulation scientists and agencies in reexamining the health effects of 

radiation. The 86,573 survivors from  the atomic bomb explosion in Japan 

have shown the harmful effects of acute radiation that could kill people and 

increase the cancer mortality and genetic defects in more than 50 years, but 

the 10,000 residents living (based on receipt statistics might be more) in 

the Co-60 contaminated houses revealed that the chronic radiation received 

in low dose rate in long period of time, just similar to the radiation 

received in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, were greatly beneficial to 

human health, such as reducing of the cancer mortality and hereditary 

diseases.



The harmful health effects of acute radiation have been popularly known for 

more than 50 years, and used as a basis for the principle and practices in 

radiological protection in the nuclear industry until today. The beneficial 

health effects of the chronic radiation observed in Taiwan since 1992 might 

be too dramatic to realize, and seldom to be considered as the same 

radiation encountered in the nuclear power plants and their associated 

facilities. So that it is important for all the radiological protection 

scientists and agencies to recognize whether the health effects of radiation 

are true observed in Taiwan, and it is also important to learn whether some 

other reports on Chernobyl accident indicating that the acute radiation 

killed limited number of workers, but when the fission products dispersed 

and decayed to be chronic a few days in the surrounding of the plant, they 

were also beneficial to the emergency workers and general public.



If all the radiological protection scientists and agencies could realize the 

difference of the acute and chronic radiation, and the LNT hypothesis is not 

appropriate for estimation the risk of the chronic radiation which is always 

beneficial to health, and might be effective immune of cancers as a vaccine, 

the human beings will be greatly benefited. How could this become true? If 

all the scientists and agencies for nuclear safety regulations in world 

would come to Taiwan, no matter it is a member or not of the WHO or the UN, 

just for knowing the number of residents in contaminated houses, the cancer 

mortality both for the irradiate residents and the general population, and 

the method used for dose estimation by the Institute of the Nuclear Energy 

Research (INER), they would learn a complete different way for radiological 

protection, the people in the world would fear no more of radiation, and the 

nuclear energy would become the best energy for human beings.



Cordially regards,



Y.C. Luan  Senior Scientist of the NuSTA and Consultant of the NBC Society.

   ,

---------------------------------------------- original 

message-----------------------------------------------------------------



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

>To: "NRC-FaroukEltawila" <FXE@nrc.gov>,        "RADSAFE" 

><owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>,        "Rad-Sci-L" 

><rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>, "Zebroski, Ed" <edzeb@sbcglobal.net>,        "Bert 

>Wolfe" <bertramwolfe@attbi.com>,        "Todreas, Neil" <todreas@mit.edu>, 

>"Taylor, John" <JJTAYLOR@epri.com>,        "Stone, Henry" 

><HStone5190@aol.com>,        "Starr,Chauncey" <CSTARR@epri.com>,        

>"Simpson, John W" <jws@hargray.com>,        "Schriesheim, Alan" 

><Schriesheim@anl.gov>,        "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>,       

>  "Pate, Zack" <ztpate@attbi.com>, "Mandil, Harry" <BMandil@aol.com>,       

>  "Levenson, Milton" <mlevenso@nas.edu>,        "Davis, Kenneth" 

><wkdavis@aol.com>,        "Cohen, Karl" <karlpc@earthlink.net>,        

>"Chapin, Doug" <dchapin@mpra.com>,        "McNeill, Corbin" 

><camcneill@wyom.net>,        "Don Hintz" <DHintz@entergy.com>,        

>"David Christian" <david_christian@dom.com>,        "Charles Pryor" 

><mjinlynchburg@aol.com>

>CC: "Connie ANS-Cherry" <ccherry@ans.org>,        "NN-BetsyTompkins" 

><btompkins@ans.org>,        "Foulke, Dr. Larry" 

><Larry.R.Foulke@verizon.net>

>Subject: NRC on Realism

>Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 13:31:45 -0400

>

>Friends:

>

>NRC Chairman Nils Diaz is "walking the walk" when it comes to applying

>realism.  He recently defined what he meant, in a talk before the Japanese

>Atomic Industrial Forum, April 21 in Tokyo:

>

>"The regulation of nuclear power plants in the U.S…is in a transitional

>phase…We need, and we are constructing, a regulatory program that better

>meets our present needs…I have said many times: “Regulation must result in 

>a

>benefit or it will result in a loss.?It is frequently too easy to do a

>little more “regulation,?to appear a bit more “protective,?and to add

>another ounce of “conservatism.? More regulation can appear enticing…The

>NRC is not in the business of zero risk…Zero is not an option, it is a

>disruption…We are learning how to define adequate protection in more 

>precise

>terms…that make sense to the American people…We have the opportunity to

>change the future, and I submit to you that we have the obligation to do 

>so?>

>"I am convinced nuclear regulation now needs to be anchored in realistic

>conservatism…if we are to avoid the twin pitfalls of under-regulation and

>over-regulation…I use “conservatism?in the sense of preserving adequate

>safety margins, and I use “realistic?in the sense of being anchored in the

>real world of physics, technology and experience…When engineering margins

>are applied to input parameters, they can distort our understanding of what

>is truly important.  Safety margins are better discerned when they are

>applied at the decision-making stage, rather than at the analysis stage."

>

>He then went on to apply this to a real and significant physical issue:

>

>"Two major steps…are close at hand, and they are important, practically and

>philosophically.  I am talking about 10CFR50.69 and 50.46.  The technical

>information and analytical methods are available and the will to change is

>strong…We have a sufficient understanding of the probabilities and

>consequences to be able to progress to the next rational level of

>regulation…Effectively, the current Large-Break LOCA would not be a design

>basis accident…The commitment to go forward with 50.46 is fully formed and

>the NRC Staff will develop proposed rule changes…The re-definition of the

>Design Base LOCA is just one step, but a very important step, in the effort

>to revise the regulatory requirements to be more risk-informed and more

>broadly coherent."

>

>Going a step further, he recently issued the following news release:

>

>"--NRC HAS ADDED A "FOR THE RECORD" SECTION TO ITS WEB SITE. A May 13 

>notice

>on NRC's home page said the section "provides NRC responses to inaccurate,

>misleading or false information in print, on television and radio, and in

>large write-in campaigns in order to provide the public with accurate and

>truthful information." Items initially posted include NRC responses to

>letters received regarding nuclear plant security and a proposed 

>independent

>spent fuel storage installation at Indian Point. The commissioners said in

>an April 28 staff requirements memorandum that "when research reports are

>misused and quoted out of context, the staff should respond promptly." The

>NRC web site is at http://www.nrc.gov.";

>

>This is something I have never convinced our own people, in nuclear

>utilities and labs to do.  If the Chief Nuclear Watchdog can do this, can't

>we Nuclear Advocates follow suit?  There is no reason to shy away from 

>being

>realistic.

>

>Ted Rockwell

>

>

>



_________________________________________________________________

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus