Re: LLW status according to AP: a fair

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Prof Cohen wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:
> > 
> > Consider the radioactivity released from deep-sea "blacksmoker" hydrothermal
> > vents? From volcanics? What about ground water that discharges massively more
> > radioactivity than released by all the rivers? 
> 
>         --I am confident that I can show that there would be essentially 
> no effects on human health and no significant radiation dose to sea
> animals (except for the tiny number that inhabit the immediate area of
> dumps). My paper in the Jan 1980 issue of NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY 
> showed that this is basically true even if high level waste were dumped. 

This is intrinsically true. Note that If we consider the massive doses to many 
burrowing animals in high-activity areas, many rem/yr with no adverse effects. 
Marine animals are the same. (There were also dramatic hormesis effects in
millions of salmon released and returned in studies at, I think, U.
Washington.) 

>It is my
> impression that the London Convention was driven by politics and no strong
> scientific effort was made to resist it because it was believed that
> shallow land burial was an easy option. Now that shallow land burial is in
> trouble because of the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude, I would like
> to see ocean dumping re-examined. At least it avoids NIMBY.

Except that the green politics makes the ocean *everyone's* backyard. In
concert with avoiding large profits for waste disposal companies and
associated self-interests. (Of course rational standards and designs would
also do that. :-) 

Have you seen the "analysis of risks" in the 1993 IAEA report? Anyone?

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.