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 4/10/2009 2:01:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hhaskell@mindspring.com writes:

At 09:56 -0400 04/09/2009, Spinozalens@aol.com wrote:

Health Effects

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have
been
conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department
of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the
Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several
independent
studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average
dose to about 2
million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into
context, exposure from a chest x-ray is about 6 millirem. Compared to
the
natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per
year for the
area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very
small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would
have been less
than 100 millirem.
In the months following the accident, although questions were raised
about
possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life
in
the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident.
Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation,
soil, and
foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very
low
levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the
accident.
However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several
well-respected
organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the
reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release
had
negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the
environment.

Bob,

I note that this is an excerpt from the NRC description of the TMI
event on their web site. I cannot give it too much credence, for the
following reasons:

1. All government agencies involved with ionizing radiation, from
radioactivity through x-rays and other effects have consistently
attempted to minimize the effects of radiation.
)))))))))))))))

BZ

What is your evidence for this? To be clear your position is that all
the government scientists and health care people involved in protecting
public health are always lying and that the anti-nuke crusaders are always
honest, never letting their anti nuclear zealotry interfere with their veracity.


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


2. The agencies responsible for monitoring radiation (often the same
ones that try to minimize its existence or effect), have consistently
failed to do the job required of them, either keeping sloppy records,
not recording needed data, poorly interpreting the data they have,
ignoring it when it is convenient, suppressing the data through
classification, or actively misrepresenting what they have. This has
been pervasive throughout the government (aided and abetted by the
commercial organizations who were trying to profit from activities
that produced the radiation), ever since the first bomb test in 1945,
including actively trying to keep the results of radiation effects
studies of the Japanese hibakusha (bomb survivors) away from both the
Japanese and American public, through censorship or classification of
the data or both.

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

BZ

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? Also one of the areas I worked in made me
responsible for the radiation monitoring systems which documented effluent
release and initiated immediate action if preset limits were exceeded.

There really is no respectable report showing any increased incidence
of cancer around operating nuclear plants in the US. In France 80% of the
electric power is from nuclear power. That's a pretty large population
sample, is there any evidence for increased incidents of cancers in France?

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




3. These same government agencies have for years attempted to
convince the public that there is a minimum level of ionizing
radiation, below which there is no damaging effect, or even that it
is beneficial at sufficiently low doses. These concepts have been
shown by epidemiologic studies to be totally false. There is no
"safe" dose of ionizing radiation, only more or less damaging levels.
They have tried consistently to label the officially "acceptable"
doses as "safe" rather than that from which the damage is offset by
the benefits. This has allowed many instances of damaging radiation
to continue for years, leading to large numbers of unnecessary
cancers among people who thought they were safe.


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

BZ

What's your evidence for this? This is nonsense. No such thing was ever
done, at least not since the 70's. I can't speak to what was done before then
because I would have been too young to be involved in nuclear energy.


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



An example of the first reason can be seen in the quote form the NRC
that you sent. The excerpt includes the passage "Estimates are that
the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only
about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a chest
x-ray is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive
background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the
collective dose to the community from the accident was very small.
The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been
less than 100 millirem." The implication is that people received
only 1 mrem of radiation, but, of course, some would have received
considerably more--up to 100 mrem if the last sentence cited is to be
believed. And the probability that any dose will induce a cancer
increases linearly with dose (perhaps even supralinearly, but most
epidemiologists use a linear relationship because it easier to
calculate and the evidence for a supralinear relationship is not
conclusive--what is conclusive is that the increase with increasing
dose is not less than linear, in spite of claims to the contrary by
industry representatives).

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

BZ


This is called the site boundary criteria, which is the expected dose of an
individual standing at the boundary for two hours during the radioactive
release. ( If I remember this correctly) And usually this is an over
estimate. But people don't stand at the boundary of nuclear plants. Even a 100
Mrem dose would probably not produce an increase of cancer rates above normal
variability in any given population. There are no credible studies that I
know of which suggest a rise in cancer rates due to TMI. Just the usual
allegations of cover up etc. If you have a study in this please provide link.

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




By emphasizing the size of the average dose relative to the
background, they manage to imply that this dose *replaces* part of
the background, rather than adds to it. It is important to remember
that all radiation received that is not part of the background simply
increases the total the person is exposed to. A small dose my not
increase the cancer risk very much for any individual, but if the
exposed population is large (as it was at TMI), the increase in
cancer risk can lead to a measurable number of additional cancer
deaths. The same thing is true of x-rays. Any x-ray exposure will
increase the cancer risk to that patient, so the physician must weigh
that risk with the diagnostic benefit the will be gained by having
the x-ray made. It is also important that the patient understands
this, and that the x-rays be made with the minimum usable dose to the
patient (it is common for medical x-rays to use up to 10 times the
necessary dose to obtain the needed information, mostly due to
physician ignorance of the actual doses being delivered by the x-ray
machine). All of these additional exposures to radiation add to that
from the irreducible background and are cumulative over time. So
spreading out a series of x-rays over several days or weeks does not
reduce the cancer risk to the patient over that from doing them all
in a short period.

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

BZ

Where do they say this? Again a totally unfounded allegation. How did you
come to this conclusion? They are putting the risk of the exposure in
perspective to with other sources of exposure including background exposure.
Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. BTW here are some numbers

Natural exposure mrem/yr

Cosmic rays 33-37

Environmental radiation 40- 240 Depending on presence of certain
mineral deposits.

self induced radiation due to K40 isotope 20

Radon and daughter products 20-250

Range of natural annual exposure of

113 mrem to 547 mrem/yr ( Non Radiation worker)

*********************************************8

Irradiation doses Single organ exposure mrem ( Non Natural non nuclear
power)

X rays of lungs 200 -500

X ray of Abdomen 1500-3000

Local total dose in the irradiation of tumors 3,000,000 - 7000,000

Television set (old style CRT) 2mrem/hr at surface

Source Dur naturliche strahlenbelastung in B Radjewski





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



The agencies responsible for monitoring radiation doses have
consistently done a lousy job of carrying that responsibility out,
often understating either the actual doses received or the actual
effects of those doses that can be expected. Steve Wing, in his
investigation of the effects of the radiation releases at TMI, found
evidence of larger emissions than were ever reported by the official
monitors at the time of the accident, whether that increases the
average dose received by the population by a significant amount or
not, it is clear that it increased the doses received by some by a
considerable amount--enough to put those people at significant risk
of cancer.
)))))))))))))))))

BZ

This comes down to who you believe. I don't find allegations of
anti-nuke crusaders credible you don't believe the government reports. But if the
government reports fudged the data I suspect it would out by someone
involved in these studies. However, the anti-nukes are often the physics version
of PETA and are on a crusade and crusades need to be fought with every
weapon including creating high levels of fear in a scientifically illiterate
public.

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



Often studies of post-irradiation cancer incidence are done within 3
or 4 years of the event, but the incidence of most cancers does not
become significant before about seven years, and then continues for
about 40 years beyond that, so a simply one-time count, especially
early on, is usually not of much value. A complete estimate of the
effects will need to take into account those cancers that have very
late onset. In other words, to say that the death rate from cancer is
such and such a value is pretty meaningless if there are still people
living who might get cancer but have not yet. In other words, we
can't always know who has been affected by a radiation accident until
all those who were involved have died, from whatever cause. That
doesn't mean we cannot make some forecasts, but it does mean that we
can't say that since no one has died within, say, 10 years of the
event, that no one will die in the future because of the event.

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

BZ

Do you apply this same logic to all risks. How does this logic stack up
against living near coal plant which are not required to limit their radiation
release? We can't say for sure we won't be hit by a meteorite either. How
can this possibly be the basis for public policy?

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



Another aspect of the radiation problem is that the standards which
government agencies and commercial organizations use to address the
risks to the public of potential or real radiation releases are based
on what is known as the "reference man," a European male about 30
years old and weighing about 150 pounds. This standard has been in
effect since it was created to enable exposure limits to be set for
the nuclear industry, which was at the time almost exclusively made
up of young white males. Exposure of the general public was not
considered in establishing those standards, so the fact that women
and children are up to 50% more susceptible to radiation-induced
cancers was never considered. So when radiation limits are
established, they rarely take into consideration that at least half
the population will be more susceptible to the radiation than the
part of it used to determine the limits. Both government and industry
have consistently ignored efforts to create standards for those parts
of the population most at risk from radiation.

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

BZ

This is just wrong. First the limits established for those exposed to
radiation occupationally are adjusted for age, and pregnant women are limited to
the normal background levels. Non occupational exposure is based on
normal background exposure which everyone experiences. People under 18 are not
allowed occupational exposure at all.

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



So, all told, I think the evidence shows that we need to take any
information regarding radiation that is released by any of the
government agencies responsible for its monitoring with considerable
skepticism, and that they are very unlikely to overestimate the
effects of any radiation incident that they are involved with.



I wish this were not true, but it is clear that the governments of
the world (not just ours) have been quite willing to sacrifice a
certain percentage of their own population to support an energy
industry of problematic value and weapons systems that have quite
possibly been more destabilizing by their presence than they ever
would have been by their absence.

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




BZ

We are back to the allegation that all the government scientists and
health care people involved in protecting public health are always lying.
Earlier you made the comment that Nuclear energy is a stupid way to boil
water. Let me suggest that miles and miles of train cars of coal, releasing giga
tons of carbon sequested in the ground over billions of years, coal
impregnated with transuranium elements and cancer causing chemicals is a far
more stupid way to boil water, but there are no organized groups inspired by
religious zeoltry that we would call the anti-coalers.

Bob Zannelli






Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:hhaskell@mindspring,.com

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them
get away with it!!




**************Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes
FREE with TaxACT.
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221653545x1201423923/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.taxact.com%2F08tax.asp%3Fsc%3D084102950004%26p%3D8
2)