Re: Potassium Iodide -Reply -Reply -Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

Scott,

You have a good set of questions.  I only wish I had the answers.  I will offer what
responses I can.

1.  (At TMI) would KI have been issued?

It is not clear.  The proposed new NRC requirement is that the States CONSIDER
the stockpiling and use of KI.  Thus it would be up to the state and local
governments.  It is quite possible that KI might not have been distributed in
Pennsylvania but might have been distributed in a more remote state, e.g.
California.  Thus would not be an NRC decision.

2.  ... to how many people?

We have no way of knowing.  There are over 30 million people in California but
only about 200,000 people within 10 miles of TMI.  

3.  ... at what cost?

KI is relatively cheap.  I suspect the principal costs would be in the subsequent
tort actions.  The cost might be all that is available under Price-Anderson, plus ...

4.  ... preventing how much thyroid cancer?

The radioiodine release from TMI was small.  The maximum estimates of thyroid
doses was only a few mrem.  Thus the administration of KI could have provided
essentially no risk reduction.

5.  ... how many adverse reactions?

Again, we do not know.  If we assume the KI were given to the people within 10
miles of the plant, and we assume that we have the good luck they had in Poland,
the expected number of medically significant effects would be about 40.  If,
however, the number of people taking potassium-sparing diuretics is large, the
number of adverse reactions could be substantially higher and could include some
fatalities.  There are many unknowns here.

6.  ... how many deaths from adverse reactions?

I can not add significantly to the response to #5, above.

General: Would KI have helped the situation at TMI?

Any benefit would have been in the psychological/political area.  People might have
felt better and the politicians may have been happier if they could have said "relax
and take this pill."  Perhaps the NRC Chairman would not have been demoted. 
The absence of radiological benefit may not have mattered.  I doubt that there are
any relevant data on any of this.

This, of course, is a personal response.

Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov