Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Fact Sheet on the Three Mile Island Accident

In a message dated 4/12/2009 2:40:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jsd@av8n.com
writes:

On 04/11/2009 07:07 AM, Spinozalens@aol.com wrote:

I worked in the nuclear industry for over 34 years and what I saw was a
meticulous record of worker exposure. I have never seen any evidence at
all
for your claim. We were required to be familiar with these studies and
the
three hypothesis of the overall effect of ionizing radiation was
presented,
including the one with the most conservative assumptions. It was never
ever
suggested that low level radiation was either harmless or beneficial.
Where are you getting this nonsense?

IMHO this is wrong as to the facts and out-of-line as to style and decorum.

I've been reading Hugh Haskell's recent notes very closely and AFAICT he's
been spot-on.

I know from first-hand observation that back in the day, "industry experts"
were running around touting the theory that there was a "threshold effect"
such that radiation below a certain threshold was virtually harmless, even
when vast numbers of people were exposed. The putative threshold was not
small; it was comparable to the limit of what was observable in a single
individual. It seemed to me like quite a leap to say that what was
unobservable in an individual would be unobservable in a large population.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
BZ

All I can say that I have never heard nonsense like this in my 34 plus
years involvement with the Nuclear Power industry. It was made very clear
that any exposure represented a health risk and that low levels of exposure
represented long term genetic and cancer health risks. They even attempted to
quantify this risk based on data from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other studies. I
don't what your decorum remark is about but I say where is your evidence for
this claim. Is there some NRC -AEC document somewhere making this claim.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00

Also a guy I knew was going around giving seminars explaining why there
was *no* threshold effect. He reported that industry goons came around to
tell him to knock it off; otherwise the industry would use its clout to
ensure the guy never got an NSF grant ever again.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
BZ

I can't respond to anecdotal stories. I never saw anything like this.
Are you sure you didn't see this on the movie China Syndrome?

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



Another data point: The industry was arguing that the supply of uranium
was virtually inexhaustible. They kept saying that long after it was
obviously not true. Having almost lost Detroit, the industry was in no
big hurry to build any more breeder reactors, and therefore the supply
of usable uranium (235U) was very definitely exhaustible.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
BZ

The supply of Uranium is immense but not using light water thermal
neutron reactors. In fact if we adopted fast neutron reactors the available supply
of Uranium is enough that we could stop mining it for a very long time. Now
whether this course of action makes sense or not, is another debate.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0



Now we get to something that you can each verify for yourself, concerning
Three Mile Island (as mentioned in the Subject: line). It's one thing to
say that those guys were incompetent (which they were) and another thing
to say they were lying (which they also were). I'm a trusting guy. I
generally trust strangers, but it is possible to earn my distrust.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
BZ


There was certainly incompetence involved with the TMI accident. Had the
operators understood the dynamics of the a small break LOCA in the pressurizer
they would not have terminated emergency core cooling and the meltdown would
not have occurred. Many changes resulted in the Nuclear industry due to TMI,
costing billions of dollars. But where is your evidence for lying. What did
they lie about?

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00


If you want to be horrified and disgusted, read the report of the
Presidential
Commission.
http://www.threemileisland.org/downloads/188.pdf
On page 104 a reporter testifies as to his first contact with a company
manager:

Fabian came on and said there was a general emergency. What
the hell is that? He said that general emergency was a "red-tape"
type of thing required by the NRC when certain conditions
exist. What conditions? "There was a problem with a feedwater
pump. The plant is shut down. We're working on it. There's
no danger off-site. No danger to the general public."

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

BZ

I can believe this, this might well be the reaction to an accident they
didn't understand much about. There was gross incompetence involved in TMI, out
to lunch management etc, etc. I'm not defending what happened at TMI, it
wasn't a bright shining moment in the Nuclear Industry.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

If you believe the reporter, the company is just plain lying. A "general
emergency" is by definition an "incident which has the potential for serious
radiological consequences to the health and safety of the general public".
(See the report, page 102.)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

BZ

This is correct. That's what a general emergency is. It's quite
possible they dragged there feet on declaring a GE for any number of reasons. I
can't get inside their heads to understand what was going on.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I followed this incident at the time. It became clear to me that the NRC
was
incompetent, the company was incompetent, and the company was lying like a
rug.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
BZ

What specific lies are you talking about? It seems that you wanted an
announcement telling the people of Pennsylvania that they were all going to die.
There is a difference between a muddled and confused response and outright
lying. The TMI accident was badly handled.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



So, do you really want to tell me that for the last 34 years, the industry
has
always upheld high standards of professionalism and honesty? Go ahead, if
you
want to ensure I will never again pay attention anything you say.



))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


Are you telling me I am not an honest person because I worked in an industry
you hate. I am relating what I know from personal experience. BTW I was a
whistle blower who got the NRC involved in a safety issue, though it was an
electrical safety issue, not a nuclear safety issue. To me the most interesting
allegation is the assertion that the NRC was telling people low levels of
radiation are harmless. This is totally counter to everything I know about
radiation protection. In fact the industry initiated the ALARA program for the
very reason that no amount of radiation exposure in benign. See links.

Bob Zannelli

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

_http://www.ehs.washington.edu/manuals/rsmanual/7alara.pdf_
(http://www.ehs.washington.edu/manuals/rsmanual/7alara.pdf)

)))))))))))))))))))))))

_http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-manual/inspection-procedur
e/ip83728.pdf_
(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-manual/inspection-procedure/ip83728.pdf)

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0


_http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/radiation/forms/alara.pdf_
(http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/radiation/forms/alara.pdf)



**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572838x1201387489/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62)