From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:52:04 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <54140@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.195454.1105@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <54037@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
(victor
 yodaiken) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep28.004433.12863@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>>cover up the results of a
>>>>>Chernobyl style graphite reactor fire

>>>>You are right.  That's totally unreasonable.  If nothing else, the
>>>>radiation measured by neighboring countries would let the cat out of
>>>>the bag ASAP.  The only people stupid enough to try something like

>>>You're right, it's not reasonable. Why don't you look it up. The
>>>Windscale fire has been covered in the media, and I already gave you
>>>a reference.

>>First I'll let you be a little more explicit...

>It's easier than going to the library, I'm sure.

More to the point, I'm not going to bother hitting the books until I
can stick it to you good...

>>>>that were the Soviets.  Of course, a graphite reactor fire that wasn't
>>>>Chernobyl style is a different matter, but the nuclear Chicken Littles
>>>>don't seem to be able to conceive of a nuclear accident that isn't
>>>>like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

>>>It wasn't like Three mile island, but it was quite similar to Chernobyl.
>>>Look it up.

>>How similar is quite similar?  For example, Chernobyl released enough
>>radiation to kill most of the firefighting crew.  How many
>>firefighters died at Windscale?  

>Not sure. The British government has not made these figures available.
>They estimate several hundred excess thyroid cancer deaths alone in the last
>30 years. 

Among the firefighters?  Seriously?  Confirm that and I will look it
up.

Really, to be like Chernobyl, I think an accident has to be a fire in
a graphite reactor without a containment building in which there is a
significant release of radiation.

>>>>>and put 1/2 million curies of Pu241 into the Irish Sea.

>>>>What't wrong with that?  Isn't the important thing how much people are
>>>>exposed to?

>>>That's the point of the GP press release: it's washing up on the
>>>beaches.

>>So what?  The important questio is whether enough is washing up on
>>beaches to hurt people.  So far we have received absolutely no
>>evidence that this is the case.

>The point is simple. You do not have the knowledge required to denounce the
>GP press release on rational grounds.

Sure I do.  The GP press release sounds oh so scary, but if you dig
into it you find out that none of the actual items cited are really
all that dangerous. It's kind of like screaming that I am poisoning
people if I drop a tablespoon of salt in a reservoir.

Sure, I am adding an infintesimal amount of salt to their drinking
water.  This infinitesimally increases the heart attack risk of
everyone who drinks that water.  So what.  No one gives a damn - it's
too little to worry about.

In the same way, GP screams "There is plutonium on the beaches!!!!"
but they do not include any evidence that there is enough to be
dangerous.  Now if they used a reasonable model and said "Assuming a
linear model, and based on beach attendance figures, we expect X
thousand people to receive a dose higher than Y and for those X
thousand people to have Z excess cancers then it might be interesting.

Personally, I'd give good odds that if you actually calculated Z it
would be less than 1.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.