Re: Alaska atomic site leaks radiation - news story -Reply

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Ron who?   I never discounted Greenpeace or even commented on this matter,
having only learned of it today.

Ron Kathren

>
>Ron,  don't be too quick to discount Greenpeace. They put
>out a book a few years ago that is an excellent reference to
>nuclear accidents  and incidents in the past. It is called the
>Greenpeace Book of the Nuclear Age. It has saved me
>countless hours trying to find information on formerly used
>defense sites. They have been very accurate in documenting
>the dates and locations of incidents.  Admittedly, their
>scientific accounting leaves a lot to be desired. ( I hadn't
>known that  " thoriated magnesium metal which forms part
>of the weapon , caught fire... The metal, already radioactive ,
>becomes highly radioactive when it is burned." pg. 136)
>
>And they are correct in that there were underground tests at
>Amchitka Island, and that if you take a sample of sea water
>there, you will find Cesium and Plutonium and all sorts of
>other radioactive contaminants. I did notice that shallow
>ocean dumping  by the former USSR in the pacific stream
>up-stream from Amchitka was not mentioned as a
>confounding factor, not to mention the sub reactors et al
>dumped in the Arctic. I didn't notice any quantities listed in
>the article either. Are we talking millions of atto-curies per
>liter here (I had to look it up too, thats 10E-18 Ci./L), or
>something detectable, like the 300 pCi/l of K-40?
>
>Its amazing how a few grains of truth viewed from a certain
>perspective can lead one to accept the entire vision. 
>
>