[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Letter to the editor
EXCELLENT! Thank you. I have sent a copy to many people in our
company.
Sanford Wagner
(phone: 800-251-9750, X. 251)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruth Weiner [SMTP:rfweine@sandia.gov]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 4:27 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Letter to the editor
>
> ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes
> ---------------------------
> From: Ruth Weiner at po821cc2
> Date: 12/12/97 2:03PM
> To: letters@latimes.com at Internet
> Receipt Requested
> Subject: Letter to the editor
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> CORRECTION PLEASE NOTE CORRECTED LETTER BELOW VERY IMPORTANT --
> please
> discard preceding letter.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ruth Weiner
>
>
> ______________________________ Forward Header
> __________________________________
> Subject: Letter to the editor
> Author: Ruth Weiner at po821cc2
> Date: 12/12/97 2:03 PM
>
>
> I sent an attached letter. In case it was illegible, here is in
> text
> only form. Thanks for your consideration.
>
>
> Letters to the Editor
> Los Angeles Times
>
> Dear Editor
>
> On 11/30/97, your paper carried a commentary on nuclear power by
> Helen
> Caldicott, which mixes a little factual information with a
> multitude
> of distortions, half-truths, and misstatements. I cannot comment
> on
> Caldicott's motives, but the distortions and misstatements need
> some
> correction. As an introductory note: the term "very radioactive"
> (or
> "highly radioactive") can be confusing. The radioactivity of a
> substance is essentially inversely proportional to the half-life,
> so
> that the shorter the half-life, the higher the radioactivity per
> gram
> of radionuclide, and the longer the half-lives, the lower the
> radioactivity. Most isotopes of plutonium (like plutonium-239
> that
> Caldicott is so vituperative about) are not in fact"HIGHLY
> radioactive," as is reflected in their very long half lives (the
> most
> radioactive is Pu-238, half-life 87 years).
>
> While it is certainly true that irradiated (spent) nuclear fuel
> contains radioactive fission products, including strontium-90 and
>
> cesium-137 with 30-year half-lives, virtually all of the fission
> products are inside the fuel elements. The vision of airborne
> clouds
> of radioactive material that Caldicott conjures up is a gross
> distortion. Nuclear power plants are not atmospheric bomb tests.
> Even
> breaches like the Three Mile Island accident did not leak
> strontium-90
> into the surrounding environment. Radioactive material which
> leaks
> out of the fuel rods is trapped in a number of ways and does not
> disperse randomly into the environment; the mass of material
> that
> leaks during operation is in fact far less than that of the
> gasoline
> vapors that you smell when you fill the tank of your car, and
> gasoline
> vapor, besides being very flammable, isn't particularly healthy
> to
> breathe.
>
> Concentration of strontium-90 in bone occurs if the strontium-90
> gets
> into the food chain, because it's biochemistry is similar to that
> of
> calcium. We know that ionizing radiation is carcinogenic, and we
> can
> infer that strontium-90 incorporated into bone can greatly
> increase
> the risk of cancer. Strontium-90 from atmospheric fallout did
> enter
> the human food chain in milk and could have increased the cancer
> risk
> in children who drank that milk, although there is no documented
> correlation with increased cancers. However, operating nuclear
> power
> plants do not produce atmospheric fallout!
>
> Strontium-90 and cesium-137 are radioactive so that after 10
> half-lives, or 300 years, 0.1% of the isotope is left, and after
> 20
> half-lives, or 600 years, one-millionth of what one started with
> is
> left. The amount of activity left after 300 or 600 years depends
> on
> the amount one started with. The phrase ".remain radioactive for
> 600
> years." is meaningless; the radioactivity doesn't magically go
> away
> after 600 years. Uranium-238, which is found in virtually all
> concrete block, is (to paraphrase Caldicott) radioactive for 49
> billion years (10 half lives). So what?
>
> The statements about plutonium are egregious distortions; the
> "even
> distribution" is a ludicrously unrealistic scenario, much like
> saying
> "if all the gasoline in the world were evenly distributed and
> everyone
> drank their share." If this happened, indeed everyone would die,
>
> quickly and very unpleasantly. On the other hand, if a pound of
>
> plutonium-239 were evenly distributed throughout the human
> population
> of the earth, each person would carry a body burden less than the
>
> normal body burden of radiopotassium. We don't know what body
> burden
> "causes" cancer, and we have considerable evidence that body
> burdens
> more than 10 times this amount are not associated with excess
> cancer.
>
> Caldicott's doomsday scenarios can be constructed with almost all
>
> commonly used household substances (e.g., "if the world's supply
> of
> detergent were evenly distributed in food people eat.") and
> ordinary
> procedures ("if everyone in the world had a full dental x-ray
> every
> week."). They amount to pointless hysteria. We use any number
> of
> substances and procedures which, if misused, damage health and
> life:
> hot stoves, gasoline and diesel engines, electric toothbrushes,
> oven
> cleaner, dry-cleaning fluid ; the list goes on and on. We know
> how to
> use these with reasonable safety, although accidents do happen.
> The
> same is true of nuclear power, which is in fact better regulated
> than
> most other activities, with consequently fewer accidents.
> Nuclear
> power plants are not atomic bombs, just as gasoline engines are
> not
> napalm bombs.
>
> Nuclear power is a legitimate and useful component of the world's
>
> energy conversion network; its benefits and hazards are
> comparable to,
> though different from, those of any other large energy
> conversion
> process. Moreover, nuclear science and engineering have made
> considerable progress since the first controlled fission
> experiment in
> 1944. Nothing is gained, and no one is benefited, when their
> hazards
> are exaggerated, distorted, and simply fabricated as in
> Caldicott's
> letter.
>
>
> Ruth F. Weiner
> 7336 Lew Wallace NE
> Albuquerque, NM 87109
> Home phone: 505-856-5011
> Work phone: 505-844-4791
>
> All opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not in any way
> represent those of my employer or anyone else.
>
> Please note: I have been a professor of chemistry and researcher
> in
> nuclear chemistry and risk assessment for 35 years, and am a
> co-author
> of two environmental engineering textbook series.
>