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

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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."

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.)

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.

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.