[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SI unit adoption as propaganda tool
This "theory" cannot possibly be correct, since by adopting the SI units we
would also then be required to report waste generated in becquerels rather
than curies. Same for "core inventory" and so forth. That means that we
would have to report, say, 37,000,000,000 Bq rather than 1 Ci.
This more than compensates for the seeming reduction in dose to workers,
which has much less ipmact on the public than waste issues.
> Good day radsafers
>
> An associate of mine is taking a general biology class at a
> local community college. The instructor has an anti nuke
> agenda. She has given the class an assignment asking the
> class to answer particular questions concerning the nuclear
> power industry. One question suggests that the nuclear power
> industry started to replace REM with the SI unit Sieverts
> for dose equivalent reporting. This instructor is convinced
> that this was done because the sv equivalent for rem would
> appear to be a smaller number, and would not be such a shock
> when reported to the public. Rather than reporting 100 rem,
> the industry would fool the world by reporting 1 sv. This
> change, as the instructor points out, was done after the
> Chernobyl accident.
>
> Would anyone care to shed some light on this assumption? I'm
> sure one rational shotgun blast will blow her theory away.
> Sorry if it raised your blood pressure. Thanks in advance. I
> can't imagine anyone being further off base.
>
> T.Fox
> Sr. HP Tech
> Office of EH&S
> University of California, San Diego
> tom_fox@ehs.ucsd.edu
**********************************************************************
William G. Nabor
University of California, Irvine
EH&S Office
Irvine, CA, 92717-2725
WGNABOR@UCI.EDU
**********************************************************************