Mike Fox on Hanford

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Group,

A cc: of a message from and to Mike that was distributed to others re Hanford
data. 

Regards, Jim
-----------------------------
Mike,

I like your summary!  Must be from the reports we were reviewing in the
'76-'77 time frame! I was unable to get the utility group to really point to
those results, and to argue that an "alternative" could be at moderate cost
with packaging and control IF the "cheap do-nothing" straw-man alternate was
not "safe enough". But we had the same "realpolitik" in the group that didn't
want to "make waves" for ERDA and the defense wastes just because the
commercial wastes were being pushed to have to meet higher, irresponsible,
standards.  I thought that was a failure to deal honestly with the technical
truth then also !? 

This relates to bringing these factual analyses together (as with the old
health effects epidemiology data we are working on) from the millions of hours 
and dead pages that went into these analyses!  Is there an additional table in 
the report that would describe/quantify what nuclides in what concentrations
contributed to these "health effects" (just Pu and Am?) 

Can you contribute some such brief "pieces" from old analyses/documents??  (We 
will collect such stuff and make it referenceable and retrievable with the BMD 
LLR data resources on a machine(s) with good pointers.  I am also going to put 
some natural radioactivity data together with some effort to provide more
comparative bases.) 

Who wants to contribute?

Regards, Jim


> JIM:
> I AM IMPRESSED WITH WHAT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS MESS.  I AM 
> FAMILIAR WITH OTHER ISSUES HOWEVER.  

> IN DOING THE EIS FOR HANFORD DEFENSE WASTES MANY YEARS AGO WE OF COURSE > HAD TO 
DETERMINE THE RISKS OF THE REQUISITE "DO NOTHING "OPTION, A NEPA >
REQUIREMENT.  
> THIS ENTAILED PUTTING SOME ENGINEERED BARRIERS OVER THE TANKS TO RESTRICT >
PLANT  ANS ANIMAL INTRUSIONS), PERHAPS SOME FENCING TO RESTRICT HUMAN 
> INTRUSION, AND  "CALL BEFORE YOU DIG" MESSAGES WRITTEN IN THE 6 OFFICIAL
> LANGUAGES OF THE  UNITED NATIONS, AND WALKING AWAY.
> 
> THE RISKS TO THE PUBLIC OVER THE NEXT 10,000 YEARS FOR THE "DO NOTHING" 
> OPTION  RANGED FROM "0" TO ABOUT 3000 "HEALTH EFFECTS".  THE MAXIMUN HARM
> ESTIMATED THEN IS AN AVERAGE OF 0.3 DEATH/YEAR. IT COULD BE ZER0.  THUS,THE 
> BENEFIT OF SPENDING 50 BILLION WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE OBSERVABLE.  THIS HARM
> IS TO BE COMPARED WITH ABOUT 2.5 MILLION DEATH/YR ANNUALLY IN THE U.S. FROM 
> NON-HANFORD CAUSES AND ABOUT 45000 DEATHS/YR IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 
> FROM NON-HANFORD CAUSES.  ALSO REMEMBER, THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT 
> CANCER MORTALITY EXCESSES IN THIS AREA, NOR AMONG THE HANFORD WORKER 
> POPULATION.  BUT HEY, FOR 50 BILLION OR SO WE CAN PROTECT THE PUBLIC EVEN 
> MORE FROM THESE HORRORS.
> 
> A PETTY THIEF ONCE TOLD ME THAT IT IS IMMORAL NOT TO SEPARATE FOOLS FROM 
> THEIR MONEY.  I'D SWEAR THIS GUY IS NOW A CONSULTANT TO DOE, EPA, NRC, OSHA, 
> AND MANY OTHERS TO HELP SCREW THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS.
> MFOX