From: glowboy@robot.nuceng.ufl.edu (Louis Iselin)
Subject: Re: whose afraid of nuclear 
Summary: Barry Ross is obviously not a health physicist 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Nuclear Engineering Sciences - Univ. of Florida
Distribution: sci
Date: 11 Dec 1992 17:10 EST  

In article <1992Dec10.4266.12013@dosgate>,
          "barry ross" <barry.ross@canrem.com> writes...
>Today  all  waste is held in pools at  each  generating  facility 
>basically,  to the best of my knowledge, because there is no  ap-
>proved  disposal method.  The new developments in this area  will 
>have to proven beyond any doubt
This is true in the US, but not in France.

"beyond any doubt" would remove all airpanes, cars, (and most
everything else...), etc. from our modern world - including most
ALL medical practice.

                                 and with the atomic energy  agen-
>cies  present  records to date are deplorable.   Even  today  the 
>rates  of acceptable radiation levels are arbitrary. Based  on  a 
>WWII  best  guess estimate of top scientists at the  time  (which 
>most  people are not aware of).

You could reach this conclusion by reading some of the literature.

Since the idea of risk is arbitrary to the individual, radiation
limits are based on best available data and assumptions which are
known to lower the acceptable limits rather than raise them.
The idea that no new information (since WWII) is taken into account
before limits or regulations are established is, however, not true.
Note that consensus limits and regulations are not the same and not
intended to be used in the same way.

                                  They have found great  increases 
>in  cancer over the average population many years down  the  road 
>with low levels of radiation.

As I understand epidemiology, an increase in risk by 10% is about
the limit of detection by such studies.  No evidence to support
an increase of cancers from ionizing radiation at low levels
(say from background or so up to the 5 rem/year occupational limit)
has ever been established.

Background in the US is around 160 mrem gamma and an average of
200 mrem from radon/radon progeny.

Note that the radiation hazard from a coal plant is higher than
a nuclear plant due to the natural radionuclides present in the
coal ash.  By a factor of 3.

                               Also levels of radio active stront-
>ium  in  grass  immediately outside the power plants  is  ten  to 
>twelve  times  the value that they thought  was  acceptable.

Where is this true? Give a reference.
                                                                So 
>radio active vapours are getting out of the power plants.   There 
>have been many scientists who have quit because of what they seen 
>in  the  safety records.  Also my major beef  was  the  liability 
>limits  afforded the manufacturers of valves, boilers  and  other 
>related  equipment.   They  are only liable to the  tune  of  one 
>million  dollars  up to about a year ago and the limit  has  been 
>raised to six million.  Otherwise NO atomic energy plant would be 
>built because no manufacturer has the insurance to cover a  major 
>catastrophe  so they would not supply the parts to build it.

The liability question rasies an interesting aside.  Suppose there
was an accident.  Where will you find a jury of the engineers' peers
to determine fault - a jury acceptable to the lawyers...  A jury
which can weigh the evidence accurately and precisely? I maintain,
along with those who passed the nuclear exemption, that the general
public is not qualified to make that kind of decision.  The law was
passed because the government's best experts determined that it was
in the people's best interest.  You may feel free to agree or
disagree with their decision.  It may be in the future that another
industry may arise - space travel??? - which will also be given the
same treatment.

                                                                We 
>are  just  going to have to find other forms of energy  that  are 
>environmentally  acceptable.  This is an easy statement  to  make 
>but next to impossible to achieve.  I am pleased with the  devel-
>opments in fission

I think you meant fusion here

                    but even with this you do not eliminate atomic 
>waste all together (much reduced but not eliminated).   Conserva-
>tion  and utilization of our existing resources of sun, wind  and 
> 
>water  is where the bulk of our research funds should  be  going.  
>This  is not as challenging as the atom though and does not  take 
>advantage of our great minds.

Not as challenging?  Then where are the final products in global
use?  There are many small companies trying to produce products
and services in these areas.  More than a few scientists and
engineers work in the fields of solar, wind, etc.

It would probably surprise the Barry to know that every nuclear
engineer and nuclear scientist I know and have ever met is
interested and follows solar, wind, etc as much as possible.

                                If it were given its proper chance 
>a few scientists maybe very surprised.  Particularly with the new 
>materials that are available today.
> 
>Enjoy and please do not criticize my grammar or you will miss the 
>points. 

I never worry about grammar as long as the message is clear. :) 

>Regards,
> 
>Barry
>

The scientific education level (particularly in the US) is so low
that the average citizen does not understand the material to be
discussed and decided upon.  Antinuclear groups (and gun control
groups) use the same types of tactics:  fear and misunderstanding.

Remember:  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  Drink deep. 


Louis Iselin, PhD candidate
UFla. Nuclear Engineering Sciences
DOE Health Physics Fellow
"I speak only for myself, standard disclaimers apply."

Corrections and references will be posted as necessary. :)