From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:52:26 GMT
Organization: WINCO

In article <53130@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.190417.29216@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>Gotta love Greenpeace propaganda.  See below.

GP>>>Many people have become ill with cancer in this region.  
>>
MF>>Of course.  Many people have become ill with cancer in every region.
MF>>Note how the carefully avoid saying that radiation is the cause -
MF>>being caught in blatant lies is embarrassing.
>
VY>It is a matter of controversy in the scientific literature right now.
VY>Check some back issues of Nature for details on the Sellafield cancer
VY>controversy.

As it stands, the GP statement is absurd, at least in terms of saying
anything significant.  I have read the back issues of Nature and, even
better, reviewed "The Atlas of Cancer Mortality for England and Wales - 1968-78"
(Wiley, 1983).

For all cancers, the Cumbria region is significantly below normal for males and
normal for females.  In terms of leukemia (and because of the shorter
latent period, more meaningful):

                        Male SMR      Female SMR
  Acute lymphatic:        125+          110+
  Chronic lymphatic:    90-109          125+ (note: CLL not radiogenic)
  Acute Myeloid:        75-89           75-89
  Chronic Myeloid:      75-89           90-109 (considered most radiogenic) 

Just to confuse things, both the North Yorkshire and Dorset regions are
in the 125+ range for chronic myeloid leukemia mortality for _both_
males and females.  Neither have any proximity to nuclear facilities.

In the U.S., a large excess of myeloid leukemia mortality is found in
most of the counties in the San Joaquin valley in California (1968-87).

GP>>>Up to 27.5 million curies of radioactivity will then be 
>>>released annually.  This may be compared with 
>>>the approximately 50 million curies which, according to 
>>>official data, were released at Chernobyl during the 
>>>accident. 
>>
MF>>Now why do I think that something in that paragraph smells fishy?
>
VY>Beats me. Got something more substantive to say?

I do.  The releases from THORP will be virtually all Kr-85, with little
dose impact.  The 50 million curies quoted for Chernobyl _exclude_ the
noble gases.  Using UNSCEAR values, the noble gas released from Chernobyl
was in the range of 500 megacuries, most of which was short-lived xenon 
isotopes (half-lives in the range of 15 minutes to 5 days).  

So the total release from Chernobyl was about 550 million curies, 
50 million of which had significant dose implications.  The projected
releases from THORP did not have significant dose implications.  The
comparison was inappropriate.  

The Greenpeace statement was an attempt to create and exploit fear.  By
the shallow moral/ethical standards of politics and propaganda, it could
be considered successful.  On a scientific basis, it was garbage.  

Whether GP's actions were based on a cynical disregard for truth or by
ignorance is impossible to know.  However, the pattern of behavior does
seem to be less defensible as the years roll on.