Re: Cs-137 in wood ash -Perspective REPLY

[RADPROJECT@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-07-08 15:39:45 EDT, you write:

<< Subj:	 RE: Cs-137 in wood ash
 Date:	98-07-08 15:39:45 EDT
 From:	lamothee@aecl.ca (Lamothe, Emelie)
 Sender:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 Reply-to:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 To:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
 
 I was asked to draft an information document for local physicians in the
 event of a radiological emergency at Chalk River.  In particular, I was
 asked to talk about the "worried-well" syndrome. I was wanting to help
 put radiation doses to the public into perspective.  Wood ash seemed
 like a good example to include because a lot of people (close to 85%)
 use wood stoves as a important source of heating in this almost all bush
 and farming county where Chalk River is located.
 
 Emelie >>

When the Cs-137 in woodash issue was the subject of numerous news and popular
journal publications, as well as a radio interview with the Canadian
Broadcasting Corp, Maritime News, Halifax [1/3/92], and the the American
Association for the Advancement of Science's Science Update broadcast on 700
affiliate states of the Mutual Broadcast Network during Sept./Oct. 1991, I was
told by the Maine State Nuclear Engineer that the State of Maine was suddenly
getting buried with questions about radioactivity in woodash, what does it
mean to the average woodburner, and should they do with their ash. Public
focus on nuclear power radiation concerns essentially disappeared, I was told
by the Maine regulators.

In one publication [Environmental Waste Management Magazine, Dec. 1991] it was
reported that  the Maine State Bureau of Health:

"conducted their own tests on woodash and confirmed the basic findings of a
researcher employed by the Yankee Atomic Electric Co. laboratory.....: tree
ash from Maine and 13 other states, probably contaminated by atmospheric
nuclear weapons tests during the 1960s and 1970s contains 100 times as much
radioactivity as any samples taken by the researcher in monitoring areas
adjacent to New England nuclear power plants. Wood ash is often used on
forests and farmland to stimulate plant growth."

In another Maine publication["Physicist Finds Radioactivity in Wood Ash",
Maine Organic Farmer- News and Events , Nov/Dec. 1991] it was reported that
woodash might contribute as much as 1 mrem/year from Cs-137 and 5 to 10
millirems/yr from Sr-90, and that:
     "the overall radiation exposure for a normal person from all sources is
350 millrems per year.
      Farber says that he does not think this added 6 to 11 millirems should
scare people; his intent seems more to emphasize the discrepancies in rules
for disposing of radioactive waste and in the amounts of radioactivity
entering the environment from different sources.  "....the data....strongly
suggest that wood ash from wood fired power plants (when used as a source of
fertilizer for commercial farming production) per net megawatt produced, can
be a 1000-fold greater source of fission products (Cs-137 and Sr-90) entering
the food chain than uncontrolled airborne or liquid nuclear power plant
environmental releases.." And he told Science News that  "federal regulations
require releases [such as septic sludges] from nuclear plants to be disposed
of as radioactive wastes if they contain even 1 percent of the cesium and
strontium levels detected in the woodash samples from New Englant."

Unfortunately, when callers from Maine and elsewhere tried to reach me at the
lab where I was employed at the time, all calls had to be referred to the
utility PR spokesperson only. As was reported in a news article ["Yankee Rowe
distancing itself from wood-ash study", Kennebec (Maine) Journal, 9/6/91)]:

     "Officials at Yankee Atomic Electric Co......are trying to distance the
company from Stewart Farber's radioactive wood ash study."
     "We don't want to be associated with it at all," said spokesman Bill
McGeee, "It's not the type of work we do here and it....was not commissioned
by the company."..."We don't want him taking too much time from his job
answering questions," McKee said."
     "His findings show that some wood ash is more radioactive than some
nuclear power plant waste, and far more radioactive than the environment
around nuclear plants." [wrote the paper].

Subsequently, interested callers from Maine told the Maine Nuclear Engineer
they could not get their questions answered in calls to the utility at which I
was employed and all their  calls were routed to a PR person who was not
prepared to answer their questions. Concerned members of the public told the
Maine regulators that it appeared the utility was "covering something up". In
the end, another nuclear organization managed to "snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory" on communicating with the public on radiation concerns and
starting a potentially beneficial proactive dialogue.

In 1988 during the presidential election campaign, as a private Consultant I
was invited to give a talk at Seabrook Station to a New England ANS local
chapter meeting titled: "Nuclear Power and Public Information: Suicide on the
Installment Plan". Hopefully, other nuclear interests can do a better job of
engaging the public in a meaningful dialogue about radiation risks.  As  the
U.S. moves into the 21st century, and decisions are being  made which will
determine if any new nuclear generating capacity is to be built, and today's
existing capacity is to be allowed to extend its operating life, such a public
dialogue will be vital to the success of any contentious technological or
nuclear endeavor.

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Consulting Scientist
Public Health Sciences
19 Stuart St.
Pawtucket, RI 02860

Phone: (401) 727-4947   Fax: (401) 727-2032   E-mail: radproject@usa.net
web page: http://www.customforum.com/carsreap