Re: Article from Union Tribune

[Keith Welch <welch@jlab.org>]

I agree with Chris, that this article, although seemingly thorough, is
extremely biased.  It is chock full of fear inducing statements, sentiments
and inferences.

examples:

...a masive reminder of what the atomic age left behind
...Mankind's contribution to this scene is quiet, too. 
...radioactive material is leaking from an immense pile of nuclear waste
and toxic chemicals. 
...as much as 28,800 gallons of it is seeping into the Colorado River 

(WOW, but at what concentration is the radioactivity?)

...Radioactive contamination is highest along the squishy riverbanks nearest
the pile: 31 times higher than Environmental Protection Agency standards. <BR>
( Which standards? -- quote some DOSE numbers)

...The mix of chemicals also found there can kill wildlife and is dangerous
to<
humans in high concentration, federal officials acknowledge. 
(here we're left to decide whether or not the levels at the site are "high"
enough to be dangerous)

...The toxicity diminishes as the water flows past the nearby town of ...
 (Translation:  probably no detectable activity above background once it's
diluted and makes it to any populated area)

...It is also the most toxic, with 10.5 million tons of radioactive waste<BR>
mixed with poisonous chemicals used in the milling process.
(Sounds bad)

...The NRC's experts say the mill tailings -- a gray crud with the
consistency of toothpaste -- pose a minimal risk to some fish and no hazard
to humans.   

(Boy those NRC experts must be bumbling stooges )

...Other government agencies disagree.  Strongly.  (They must be smart)

...They fear traces of radiation already found in Colorado River drinking<BR>
water could increase to dangerous levels.  They fear an earthquake or
flood<BR>
could dislodge the waste and dump it directly into the river.  They fear<BR>
choosing the cheaper solution now will leave future generations to pay a<BR>
high price in unforeseen health problems. <BR>

(How many times can we use FEAR in one paragraph)


I'll stop there.  I know I'm a cynical paranoid, but oh well. 
------------------------

>I disagree that the article is balanced.  Despite the fact that the
>radiation concentrations are not a problem, the writer keeps using the
>imagery of the huge quantities of water and large numbers of people who
>are drinking it to make a 'scare story'.  When someone suggests the
>expenditure of millions of dollars, even though the emissions are within
>regulatory limits, I'd say that is a complete waste of money.
>
>Because the article is more carefully written than some, it comes across
>as more credible, and so will convince more people that there is a
>problem.
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris Davey
>
>


Keith Welch
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA
welch@cebaf.gov
Ph: (757)269-7212
FAX:(757)269-5048
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html