Re: Newspaper ad against INEEL incinerator

[antatnsu@pacbell.net]

My comments below.  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

William F Miller/MILLERWF/LMITCO/INEEL/US wrote:

> Us lucky folks at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab have
> some wealthy neighbors in Jackson Wyoming (150 miles east) who are trying
> to stop a proposed radioactive waste incinerator project.
> They ran a full page ad in the local Idaho Falls paper.
> How does one respond to these statements:
> * incineration of any toxic waste, much less nuclear waste, is condemned by
> most informed scientists, including DOE's own scientists.

I don't know if DOE would approve, but I'd run a response ad that contains
substantially the following:

"The writers of the advertisement a few days ago about the radioactive waste
incinerator project at INEEL made several statements without giving any basis
for those statements.  For example:  "incineration of any toxic waste, much
less nuclear waste, is condemned by most informed scientists, including DOE's
own scientists" does not give the names of informed scientists who condemn
incineration.

> *DOE scientist themselves have said NO to a proposed plutonium incinerator
> in California.

What are the names of the DOE scientists who said that?

> LLNL said - we view incineration as a violation of the
> cardinal principal of rad waste treatment: namely containing radioactivity
> rather then spreading it around.

Where is this quotation to be found?

> *LLNL's own internal panel thought it "prudent to avoid placing a mixed
> waste incinerator in the midst of a rapidly growing, increasingly
> residential environment."

Where is this quotation to be found?

> *BNFL concluded that incineration at its own facility in England was too
> dangerous and expensive to clean up.

Where is this conclusion to be found in the written literature?

> quoting Dr. John Goffman (UC) - there has never been in the history of
> science a any evidence that there's a safe dose of radiation ...there is no
> threshold ...you can expect cancer or leukemia or chromosome injury all the
> way down to the lowest conceivable dose.

If Dr. Goffman can be quoted, where are the names of the others who made
statements in this article? (Then present evidence of Hormesis or adaptive
response and the fact that all of Gofmann's statement is not true.)

> * even DOE admits that incineration is 100 times more dangerous as opposed
> to non incineration alternatives.

Where is this statement made in DOE literature?

> * INEEL expects to process a metric ton of Pu-239, equivalent to 166
> Nagasaki size bombs.

Is the Pu-239 in the form that could be used for bombs, or in some other form
that could not be so used?

> * Review of INEELs operating history for the last decade reveals thirty
> nuclear facility emission control system breakdowns, eight of which
> involved filtered facilities - Were where the headlines on these facts.

Have not lessons been learned from those incidents so that current facilities
will not have such incidents?  What were the off site consequences of the
"breakdowns?"

> * in the case of an incineration explosion, DOE estimates that about 500
> grams of Pu-239 could be in the ventilation and filter system.  this
> represents the equivalent of over six million lethal lung cancer doses.

Where are the data that demonstrate 500 grams of PU-239 are the equivalent of
six million lethal lung doses is true?  So what if there is Pu-239 in the
ventilation and filter system?  If it's in the system it's not in the
environment.

> * a study by the CDC and DOE admits there are gaps in knowledge.  The
> report says- for  the safety of the communities surrounding INEEL a
> determination must be made of the potential health risks that might result
> from past exposures to chemicals and radionuclides released from the site.
> In other words - INEEL doesn't know how dangerous its own actions have

Where are the demonstrated injuries supposedly experienced by members of the
public from releases from the site?

In other words, fight back in the press and demand proof of these statements.
Present counter arguments where available.  If done in a professional manner, I
think the readers of the ad would applaud, especially those who live in Idaho
Falls.

> been.
>
> Bill Miller
> INEEL
> 208-526-2185
> millerwf@inel.gov
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html


begin:          vcard
fn:             Al Tschaeche
n:              Tschaeche;Al
org:            Nuclear Standards Unlimited
email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:          CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard