From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:48:52 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <Greenpeace.1Sep1992.8am1@naughty-peahen.org> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>RADIOACTIVE SAND FROM SELLAFIELD PROVES NUCLEAR REPROCESSING IS 
>UNLAWFUL 
>  
>GERMANY, August 18, 1992 (GP) In an old bunker in the free port 
>of Hamburg Greenpeace is today presenting to the press 
>radioactive sand contaminated with plutonium. Sand from the shore 
>in the area around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in England.  
>Sand in which children play and families have their picnics.  
>Many people have become ill with cancer in this region.  

A prudent soul might observe that many people "have become ill with
cancer" (a nice turn of phrase, that) everywhere.


>Greenpeace took the sand as soil samples in May and June 1992. 
>  A new reprocessing plant, THORP, as it is called, in which 
>spent fuel rods from German nuclear power stations should 
>also be reprocessed, is due to go into operation at 
>Sellafield this autumn.  With THORP the total emissions from 
>plants at Sellafield will increase by 1,000 per cent.  "The 
>Ministers of the federal German states and the Federal 
>Minister of the Environment will then be partly responsible for 
>this scandal," says Roland Hipp, Greenpeace's expert in nuclear 
>issues.  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. 

Oops!  Science suffers another sling and arrow.  The 50E6 value for
Chernobyl _did not include_ the noble gases, most of which are
short-lived (particularly xenon-133, 133m, 135, and 135m)
and account for 99.9+% of releases and practically none of the dose. 

One presumes that Mr. Roland Hipp, "Greenpeace's expert in nuclear
issues" might have, in good conscience, provided that info.  The annual
releases from THORP must include such materials.  For example, a 55-GWe
fuel reprocessing plant would only release about 16E6 curies,
practically all of which would be krypton-85.

Again, the potential dose commitment is what is interesting, not an
apples-and-oranges listing of curies.

>  Scientists from Bremen University conducting gamma- 
>spectrometric analyses detected in the samples Greenpeace 
>took at Sellafield in May up to 9,435 becquerels of caesium 137 
>and 8,520 becquerels of americium 241 per kilogramme of earth.  
>Their alpha-spectrometric analyses revealed up to 
>6,747 becquerels of plutonium 239/40.  These analyses were 
>made on the basis of the samples' weight when wet.  
>Manchester University analyzed the June samples on the basis of 
>their dry weight.  The results proved worse still - the 
>scientists there detected concentrations of activity of up 
>to 13,000 becquerels of caesium 137 and up to 27,000 
>becquerels of americium 241 per kilogramme.  In their alpha- 
>spectrometric analyses they found up to 10,800 becquerels of 
>plutonium 239 in the dried sand.   

It would be interesting to know if these were averages for bulk
collection of sand or "selected" hot spots.

Conversion to curies per kg requires division by 37,000,000,000. 
Nothing is changed, but it doesn't look quite as scary. 

This posting is a wonderful example of the abuse of data.

Sad......and, even sadder, predictable.

-------------------------------------------------------
russ@pmafire.inel.gov