Re: AW: Amchitka - waste of taxpayers money

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Franz,

If you lived in the U.S., I would suggest you write to

your representatives about the wasteful spending at

DOE.  Come to think of it, you could even write from

Austria.  I am sure you would get the same

consideration.  Nil.



--- Franz_Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>

wrote:



> Maury, RADSAFErs,

> 

> I hardly know anything about the Amchitka test and

> was too lazy to look

> it up in literature right now, but what I know is

> that it was an

> underground test, accompanied by a huge underwater

> landslide.

> 

> There are a few other locations in this world, which

> might be used for

> comparison, which will clearly indicate, that the

> "research" proposed is

> just a waste of taxpayers money.

> 

> For underground tests you might refer to the Nevada

> Test Site, to the

> tests of the Sovjetunion either in Kazachstan or

> Novaja Semlja, but the

> most comprehensive and extremely easily accessible

> literature you will

> find about the French tests on Mururoa and

> Fangataufa. Since the tests

> at the Marshall Islands have only been atmospheric

> and not underground

> they cannot serve for comparison.

> 

> Both locations Mururoa and Fangataufa are atolls,

> embracing a lagoon and

> surrounded by open sea. 193 nuclear tests were

> conducted there between

> 1966 and 1996, of which 41 were atmospheric nuclear

> tests and 5

> atmospheric "safety trials". 

> 

> At the request of the French Government the IAEA

> conducted a study on

> "The Radiological Situation at the Atolls of Mururoa

> and Fangataufa"

> (also the title of the report) which lasted from

> 1996 to 1998, the

> results of which were presented at a big

> international conference in

> Vienna and the mentioned report. The aim of this

> study was to carefully

> evaluate the radiological situation and to

> corroborate the results of

> the extremely extensive French surveillance

> programme. It extended also

> to the open sea and the question whether there was

> any impact on other

> atolls of French Polynesia or within the South

> Pacific.

> 

> I can personally only speak for the terrestrial

> working group of which I

> was the head: There was no interference whatsoever

> from whatever side

> concerning our work, our sampling programme, our

> in-situ measurements

> and our laboratory measurements and - most important

> - the published

> results. I do not doubt that the same is true for

> the aquatic working

> group.  

> 

> Needless to say, that in spite of the atmospheric

> nuclear tests the

> contamination both in the terrestrial and aquatic

> environment is

> extremely low and - to give a comparison - the

> contamination with Cs-137

> due to the Chernobyl accident is higher in Europe

> than on the two

> atolls. The main radiological contributor is Po-210

> in seafood - as it

> is everywhere in this world - and this is of natural

> origin. The only

> enhanced radionuclide concentrations from

> underground tests which could

> be found in the lagoon were for tritium - but the

> concentration was

> lower than in rainwater in the Northern Hemisphere.

> 

> The IAEA has published an extremely comprehensive

> report, which even

> contains the results of all single measurements (the

> title was given

> above). It was published in 1998 and you can find

> more about it on the

> IAEA website (Publications). 

> 

> 

> In this context the research on contamination of the

> Irish sea and the

> "shores" of Cumbria (UK) by the emissions from the

> Nuclear Fuel

> Recycling Plant at Sellafield might be of interest

> for comparisons. For

> LaHague in France there exist also reports. In both

> cases Po-210 is the

> radionuclide of the highest - but though negligible

> - contamination

> potential. 

> 

> 

> There are of course different condition comparing

> e.g. Mururoa and

> Amchitka. One which might be of most importance is

> the environment -

> Mururoa is very warm (also the water, nice to swim

> in it) and Amchitka

> cold. From all my limited knowledge on radioecology

> (Chernobyl based) I

> draw the conclusion, that in cold waters the uptake

> of radionuclides by

> organisms must be much slower, and therefore the

> contamination much

> lower. BTW we enjoyed locally caught fish on Mururoa

> very much and in

> 1987 I enjoyed locally harvested shrimps, prawns

> etc. very much in

> Cumbria. 

> 

> Another difference is the yield of the explosions.

> While the French were

> obviously only interested in tactical nuclear

> devices of rather low

> yield (a comprehensive overview on the yields of the

> Mururoa test

> devices can be found in the IAEA report), the

> Amchitka bomb yield was by

> far higher. 

> 

> Though not having been there and not having done any

> measurements I

> think when considering my experience from Mururoa

> there is not the

> slightest risk as to contamination of seafood in

> Amchitka. I offer

> everybody, who pays my trip there to eat crab

> everyday and of course I

> mean those crabs which have not been checked by

> radioactivity

> measurements.  

> 

> Since DOE seems to have too much money available I

> offer to participate

> in this exercise at a modest fee. My experience with

> the Mururoa Project

> should be excellent credentials!

> 

> There were many US scientists involved in the IAEA

> Mururoa Project. Does

> DOE not even trust US scientists? 

> 

> 

> As for your friend and the king crab fisher - they

> may contact me if

> they want and my comments and advices to them will

> be free of charge of

> course!

> 

> Best regards from our good old Austria, which is cut

> off from the sea

> since the end of WW I and even before never enjoyed

> king crabs.....

> 

> Franz

> 

> 

> 

> 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] Im

> Auftrag von maury

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. August 2004 08:56

> An: Radiation Safety

> Betreff: Amchitka

> 

> A friend posed these questions (shown below)  to me

> concerning possible

> radioactive contamination of seafood in the Amchitka

> region. Do any of

> you happen to know of already existing measures that

> would likely detect

> radioactivity contamination if it existed in that

> region? I would expect

> that time and dilution would remove the effects of

> any seepage from the

> underwater test crater.  (Which I'd think would

> negate DOE funding to do

> more studies.)

> 

> I'd appreaciate any comments that you think might

> interest him.

> Thanks in advance,

> Maury    maury@webtexas.com

> 

> ======================

> 

=== message truncated ===





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects."

Will Rogers



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com





		

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

************************************************************************

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/