Re: Ed Fuller re Ward Valley initiative

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

To Ed Fuller:

Ed,

For your info and use from Mike Fox.

Regards, Jim

-------------forwarded message-----------

The following is in response to Ed Fuller, former ANS President, who is active 
 in the Ward Valley Coalition. 


Regards, Jim

-------------------------
Ed,

> Jim-Keep up the good fight on the info hiway.The time for action is now.

Of course. Next time I'll try to say "Colorado River" instead of "Columbia"?!  
 (I was also asking about natural radioactivity in the Columbia when the

Hanford dose-reconstruction study was being discussed.  Didn't get any info
there either.) 

JIM:
THERE IS LOTS OF DATA AVAILABLE ABOUT THE COLUMBIA RIVER (AND EVERYTHING ELSE
AROUND HANFORD).  BATTELLE WRITES ONE OF THE FINEST ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
ANNUALLY THAT I'M AM AWARE OF.  ONE OF MY FRUSTRATIONS WITH IT, AND THEY KNOW
IT, IS THE TREMENDOUS EMPHASIS ON MAN-MADE ISOTOPES AND SCANT MENTION OF
NATURAL ISOTOPE CONCENTRATIONS.  REPORTING U-238 SEEMS TO BE THE EXCEPTION.  

THIS A GENERAL CRITICISM I HAVE FOR ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS I'VE SEEN. I 
THINK I KNOW SOME OF THE REASONS WHY.  

IN THEIR DEFENSE IT COSTS MONEY TO ANALYZE FOR U, TH, RN, K-40, ETC FOR 
THOUSAND OF SAMPLES.  I ALSO NEED TO REPEAT THAT THE CITY OF RICHLAND HAS USED 
COLUMBIA RIVER AS A SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER FROM THE BEGINNING, 8
ONCE-THROUGH REACTORS AND ALL.  

USING MILK ANALYSES AS AN EXAMPLE IF WE REPORT 4 PCI/L OF CS-137 IN MILK (THE 
DETECTION LIMIT FOR CS-137), AT NUCLEAR FACILITIES, SHOULDN'T WE ALSO BE 
REPORTING THE 1200 PCI/L OF K-40 ALSO IN THE MILK NATURALLY, ESPECIALLY IF THE 
 K-40 HAS HIGHER GAMMA AND BETA ENERGIES?  


THE BATTELLE REPORT IS SENT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.  EXTRAS MAY BE AVAILABLE.
MIKE FOX   

Can you help here:

What is the Colorado River rad data? or a good source? 

And count all radionuclides, not just a "gross alpha" or Uranium/Thorium conc
that does not include daughters (oops, "progeny") U: 17 in chain - 8 alpha, 6
beta, 3 gamma; but cut off at radon and assume radon and "progeny" discharged
to air? (and not just "short-lived" daughters re lung dose, but also
Pb/Po-210/Bi-214 with 20-year half-life! Th: 14 in chain (but Rn/dau short for 
 rad risks -- except people on the river). 


JIM:
CORRECT.  GROSS ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA, IS NOT ENOUGH.  
MF

What is the river flow rate (cu ft/sec) in the lower stretch? (and multiply)
for "discharge" flow of radioactivity!  (What are downstream uses of the river 
 water - irrigation, drinking, etc that are "at risk"  ---   what are site

nuclides with >50 yr half lives?  (What is discharge rate of a waste plume
that would reach the river in say 500 years? See eg, the Canadian plumes from
liquid discharge of Sr-90 at Chalk River in the 50's. ) 

What is conc/inventory of natural radionuclides in ground volume from site to
river (to 1000 foot depth)?  Compare with conc/inventory of rad offsite
(liquid discharge).

I'VE DONE THESE  CALCULATIONS FOR HANFORD, BENTON COUNTY, AND THE STATE OF 
WASHINGTON FOR SEVERAL DEPTHS.  ALSO FOR RADON EMANATIONS. I RELIED UPON
SCANTY DATA BUT THE CALCULATIONS DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE BALLPARK WE ARE
WORKING IN. 
 
THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY INSTRUCTIVE EXERCISE.  

ALSO IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM DATA SINCE WE ARE
STILL MEASURING FALLOUT FROM THE 50S AND 60S.  IT IS THE DELTA WHICH IS 
IMPORTANT.

THE THIRD GENERAL PROBLEM IS THE SENSITIVITY OF THE DETECTION DEVICES.  
BATTELLE ROUTINELY REPORTS I-129 CONCENTRATONS IN RIVER WATER IN ATTOCURIES!!!

I CALCULATED THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY: DETECTING THIS AMOUNT OF I-129 IN THE 
COLUMBIA IS EQUIVALENT OF FINDING 1 MARKED GRAIN OF WHEAT IN 11 WASHINGTON 
STATE WHEAT CROPS (150 MILLION BUSHELS/YR).  IT GETS BETTER.  IF ONE ASSUMES 
THAT THE MAXIMUM IODINE UPTAKE FOR AN ADULT THYROID IS 12 MILLIGRAMS (NCRP 
#80), ONE WOULD HAVE TO DRINK THE COLUMBIA RIVER DRY FOR 2 HRS TO GET THIS
MUCH I-129 (5.4 BILLION GALLONS), WHICH MEANS GETTING UP A LOT DURING THE
NIGHT.   

REST ASSURED AMERICA. FOR 100 BILLION DOLLARS OF YOUR MONEY WE WILL PROTECT
YOU FROM ALL OF THIS. GIVEN THAT CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS HAVE
CRIMINAL PENALTIES, WE CAN GO TO PRISON IF WE DON'T SPEND YOUR MONEY THIS WAY. 

MF    

<rest of original message deleted> JM