Re: Article from Union Tribune

["Scott D. Kniffin" <Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Ok, ok, ok,
So its not as balanced as perhaps I made it out to be.  But it isn't the
grossly anti-nuke trash I'm used to.  It's not perfect by any means (the
original article misspelled San in San Francisco as Sen for that matter)
but it is a start.  We've recently been round and round about the media and
deception, at least this reporter came to one of us for information as
opposed to, say Caldicot, no?  I hear your arguments and agree with some
but I'm going to put another 2 cents in on this:

At 17:24 09/02/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I agree with Chris, that this article, although seemingly thorough, is
>extremely biased.  It is chock full of fear inducing statements, sentiments
>and inferences.

>....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?)

Granted, it's disquieting, but nothing there is blatantly untrue.  As for
the concentration, I seriously doubt that for the readership of a major
city newspaper, outside of our group, anyone would know how to interperet a
concentration even if given.  Keep in mind that in today's environment ANY
rad in the water is PERCEIVED as bad, regardless of concentration, isotope
and whether or not mother nature put it there.  

>....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)

Again, the average reader won't look up/understand the EPA Std.  Also, an
editor would likely chop that for space anyway.  It's a newspaper, not a
paper for a journal.  

>....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)

Ok, very poor statement and should have been cleared up.

>
>....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)

Sounds likely to me too, but I'd like to see some more of those numbers
that wouldn't get printed in a newspaper because it sounds like technobable
from Star Trek.
>
>....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)
I agree with that, it sure does sound 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 )

The question here for me would be what context was this question asked of
the unnamed NRC expert?  It sounds a bit weak to me, but "they" did say it
posed a hazard which is true.  

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

But further down the article, it said US Fish and Wildlife backed down.  I
know almost no one gets that far into an article, but they did and he (the
reporter) did say it.  

>....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)
Ok, yes it is a gross overuse of one word and as an editor, I would have
asked for a change.  However, the first two things seem like reasonable
concerns from a safety aspect.  (Although I didn't think that earthquakes
were a concern for that area.)  As for the health problems, I figure that
the intent was to indicate the possibility of radiation effects (little
green mutants), but I see it as more of a worry from the aspect of the
other heavy metals and arsenic there.  So it is a valid concern from a
certain point of view.  (That would be the system safety engineer in me.)

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

Ok, maybe I helped mke your point some more, but I still think that the
article was not that bad.  I know I'm stealing someone's .sig but I can't
remember who's it is:  It's not about dose, it's about trust.  BTW, there
is no way on earth that you're more of a cynical paranoid than I am.  

Scott Kniffin
Engineer
RSO, Unisys Federal Systems, Lanham, MD
CHO, Radiation Effects Facility, GSFC, NASA, Greenbelt, MD
mailto:Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov

The opinions expressed here are my own.  They do not necessarily represent
the views of Unisys Corporation or NASA.  This information has not been
reviewed by my employer or supervisor.  

>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