From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:11:24 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: TMI Releases & Population Dose
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <Jym.25Jan1993.0237@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>> The central estimate of population dose was about 2000
>> person-rem for the 541,000 persons living within 50 miles.
>> This is an average dose of 4 mrem.
>
>=o= I presume these numbers come from the Tokuhata studies,
>since that's the source you keep trotting out.  Care to go
>into detail about how these estimates are made?  Care to give
>any numbers reflecting a variance in dose, rather than some
>flat average?

Tokuhata (of the Pennsylvania State Department of Health) did an
epidemiologic study, not a dose measurement.

I will attempt to dredge it out of my time/stack filing system.
>
>>> It is well-documented that MetEd does not have measurements
>>> of the radiation released . . .
>> There is, of course, a difference between "radiation released"
>> and "dose".  That distinction seems to have eluded Mr. Dyer.
>
>=o= The distinction does not elude me at all.  What does elude
>me, though, is how you think you can get away from the fact that
>"radiation released" somehow has no effect on "dose received."

If you would read the sentence just quoted, you will notice that I
wrote, "There is, of course, a difference between "radiation released"
and "dose"...which you, not I, cheerfully translated into "radiation released"
somehow has no effect on "dose received".  To be precise, the
_radioactivity_ released is related to potential doses when that is
combined with radionuclide distribution, weather patterns,
precipitation, and location of persons.  The _radiation_ from the TMI
facility could only have affected the worker population.  Radiation and
radioactivity are different things.

Using the radioactivity released and the above-mentioned (others could
be considered, too) factors, one could use a model to predict potential
doses.  But direct field measurement using air samplers and other
detectors provide better estimates.  Both were done.

Consider that if the estimate (4 mrem) were 10 times higher, there still
would be no significant health impacts in the population.  Using
conservative estimators of risk, one might postulate a single health
effect in the 541,000 population.  Bear in mind that this population
would, during the aggregated lifetimes, have about 119,000 cancer deaths.
>
>=o= In fact, the premise that only small amounts of radiation
>was released (a premise proven false by every independent
>analysis of the accident) has had a very direct effect on the
>studies used to estimate the dose received.  Since the official
>amount released was small, Tokuhata saw no point in actually
>monitoring the health of hundreds of thousands of people.

At the risk of being impolite, this last paragraph (forgiving your
inability to understand the radiation-radioactivity difference) suggests
that you do not understand that of which you speak.

BTW, the health data of the area are carefully recorded by the National
Cancer Institute and are maintained in a database covering the 1950-1990
period.  


Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.clinton