AW: [ RadSafe ] TFP, MS, Nuclear Power Plant Effluents

[Franz Schönhofer]

Eric and RADSAFErs,

I have not commented on the recent threads on the TFP, not on the MS
"study", not on (uncontrolled) effluents. This is though I may put
forward that I have done a lot of work on Sr-90 in the environment also
in connection with the Chernobyl accident and that I have been in charge
of controlling effluents from our Austrian Research Reactors. Moreover I
am quite familiar with regulations world wide.

Why I did not comment is simply explained: There is no use of doing so.
And the slogan "Educate the Public" is nice, but without any chance of
being successful.

Anybody out there to educate Sternglass about his being wrong with
whatever he has published since decades? Anybody telling him about the
most primitive statistics which students have to learn during their
first year? Anybody trying to do the same on Magnago? What about Alec
Baldwin and the other celebrities?

Years ago, when Norman Cohen appeared at RADSAFE I was flamed because I
was so "aggressive" to him and unpolite. Then I tried to explain him
very patiently and in a way that even a layman would understand it, why
the TFP was totally wrong - from my year-long experience on the Sr-90
topic and its radioecology. I spent hours and hours to explain it,
sometimes I had the impression that he understood it (that he
understands it I do not doubt, but he has his prejudice which does not
allow him to accept it). I have never received an answer, how these
people explain the direct pathway from nuclear fuel to baby teeth. BTW
nobody at RADSAFE has ever bothered about it. 

What was the result of my patience? Norman started the same thing over
and over again. I terminated our exchange of opinion since I did not see
any use of it anymore. But I have to say, that at least he never flamed
me in such a way as it recently happened on RADSAFE and he never used
such words as some persons regarding themselves as true radiation
scientists did. 

Having been at Arizona State University in 1988 for a few weeks I know
more than well, that effluents from nuclear power plants are not only
controlled by the licensee, but also by independent institutions. So
what is all this discussion on "effluents" about? No effluents above the
strict limits - no dose to worry about.  

RADSAFErs, go on to answer every little detail of the accusations with
scientifically correct explanations. Tomorrow you will find the ten-fold
of similar silly claims. Answer them - the next day the claims will be
hundred-fold. I personally do not want to play that game.

Best regards,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von goldinem at songs.sce.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2005 23:35
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power Plant Effluents
> 
> I get Radsafe in digest form so I'm a bit behind. I also saw some very
> good
> responses by others regarding effluent releases.  Thought I'd add my
two
> cents.
> 
> Norm Cohen wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Norm Cohen [mailto:ncohen12 at comcast.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:11 PM
> 
> >When reading the annual effluent reports, at least the ones from PSEG
> (Salem/Hope Creek) >and from Exelon (Oyster), its clear that there is
alot
> of estimating and guessing going on. >I have been told that effluent
> numbers went down after TMI and I've been told that not all >effluent
> releases are caught and measured.
> 
> Norm,  there is not a lot of guessing and estimating. Any measurement
in
> modern science has associated statistical errors.  The Nuclear
Regulatory
> Commission requires an estimate of the magnitude of the statistical
error.
> The values in the effluent reports are the values of the release.
There
> are always small statistical errors associated with the measurement,
lab
> analysis, flow rates, etc.  I seriously doubt if you see any errors of
50%
> or 100% unless the measurement levels are very close to
"undetectable,"
> something quite possible for the almost (or actual) zero releases of
> something like Sr-90 (you won't see errors like that for noble gas
> releases
> that are actually measurable).  As an analogy, how "accurate" is the
> speedometer on your car?  Plus or minus 3%, 10%?  Does the error
change at
> low speed vice high speed?  Ever change your tire size without
> recalibrating your speedometer?  What's it say when you are just
rolling
> forward at walking speed out of the driveway?  I'd bet it's pretty
close
> to
> zero with very large statistical errors.
> 
> Effluent releases most assuredly declined in the years after TMI.
Simply
> put, the industry got a lot better controlling releases and operating
more
> efficiently.  Credit TMI itself, the creation of INPO as a direct
result
> of
> TMI, and the greater inspection thoroughness of the NRC.
> 
> Lastly, you suggested that "not all effluent releases are caught and
> measured."  For you and others on Radsafe who may not be familiar with
> nuclear power plant design, airborne effluent pathways are monitored
(a
> specific term based in regulatory guidance) for the releases of noble
> gases
> by direct analysis of airstreams in ventilation system exhausts.
> Particulate and iodine releases are sampled (another specific term
with a
> regulatory basis) by collecting a portion of the airstream on filters
and
> absorbers that are analyzed in the lab weekly.  All, repeat, all the
> "major
> and significant" effluent pathways are monitored and sampled in
accordance
> with detailed NRC requirements.  The only pathways not included are
those
> that are truly not significant. As an example PWR turbine building
> exhausts
> are often not monitored because there really are no radioactive
effluents.
> Liquid releases, as Brian noted are even more easily controlled
because
> tanks can be sampled before release, or liquid streams can be sampled
> continuously....
> 
> Bottom line, the controls are good enough such that no real person
gets
> more than (typically) a hypothetical (repeat, hypothetical) 1 mrem per
> year
> living at the boundary of your US nuclear power plant.  I guarantee
you
> this is less dose than from the coal burner down the road.  The
ridiculous
> thought that nuclear plants are contributing to illnesses by the
release
> of
> Sr-90 is really, really bad science fiction.
> 
> Eric M. Goldin, CHP (Ph.D. too if that helps convince you but I doubt
it)
> <goldinem at songs.sce.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> 
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe