[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Imaginary Cancers
First, I hope Tosh Ushino or one of the other HPs at SONGS
explains to John what the ICRP is!
Second, it is very common for activist groups to "assume"
a facility will release continuously to the "limit" provided
(100 mrem to a member of the general public per annum) and
enter a risk curve, table, calculation, whatever to demonstrate
the cancer/death rate expected. Facility design limits,
probability of any member of the public being near the Yucca
Flats facility (having been there a time or two and seen some
of the demo monoliths in their final form, I guarantee it will
not compete with Las Vegas as a tourist attraction!) to get
ANY measureable exposure, and nature of an event to result in
significant or measurable perimeter doses would all have to
be considered to properly respond to the activist's "concern".
Third, I kind of like Gary's reference to Denver (also being
an old Denverite). Although the NCRP recently provides some-
what different numbers, it has been said that the natural
background radiation dose at sea level of about 100 mrem/annum
(excluding radon of course) can be compared with that of 250-
500 mrem/annum in Denver (the notorious mile-high city!). The
area around Yucca Mountain is probably a good 100 to 200 mrem
of altitude (etc.) dose less than Denver from natural
background sources (I'm guesstimating here, our NTS colleagues
or old EG&G Nevada or EPA folks might have better numbers at
hand). Now you only have to explain to John (or much worse,
the activist) why dose equivalent makes the comparison between
natural and human-made radiation exposure possible!
Another conjectural opinion!
At 03:26 PM 10/20/95 -0500, you wrote:
> - Captain Internal Dosimetry!
>
> Imaginary Cancers
>
>Reply to John Huges at SONGS.
>
>I'll let someone else address the actual risk numbers, ...
-----------------------
Michael P. Grissom
mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
Phone: (415) 926-2346
Fax: (415) 926-3030