Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:56:49 GMT
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 <1992Sep9.153215.4126@fylz.wa.com> fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>: Gotta love Greenpeace propaganda.  See below.

>: In article <Greenpeace.1Sep1992.8am1@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Greenpeace via Jym Dyer) writes:
>: >[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]

>: >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. 

>: How contaminated is it?  There is a big defference between detectable
>: levels of contamination and dangerous levels of contamination.

>In the case of plutonium, I beg to differ.  One gram of plutonium is
>enough to give everyone in the United States lung cancer.  Yes, this
>requires proper distribution but a detectable amount is enough to
>cause cancer in something alive.

And a detectable amount of arsenic is enough to cause cancer in
something alive.  Despite this we manage to survive in an environment
laced with it.  Your lung cancer stat is meaningless.  The meaningful
question is how much radiation and potential plutonium ingestion
beachgoers would be exposed to.  For a worst case scenario, take a
lifeguard.  

>: >  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.  

>: Sounds scary, no?  But how much is that compared to normal background
>: levels? 

>Considering that plutonium and americium and "manufactured" elements I
>would suspect that the answer to this question is fairly obvious.
>But, in case it isn't, the following is from page 178 of _Poisoned
>Power_ by Gofman and Tamplin:

>	The worldwide inventory of plutonium is manmade.  It was
> 	viturally nonexistent in the earth's crust before the U.S.
>	atomic bomb program was initiated.  By far the major use of
>	plutonium today is in the manufacture of nuclear bombs.

That's nice and informative but also irrelevant.  Atmospheric tests
have distributed plutonium and americium and other such elements world
wide.  You can find then everywhere.  There is now a normal background
level. 
>	The cancer producing potential of plutonium is well
>	known.  An amount as small as on ten-millionth of an
>	ounce injected under the skin of mice has caused cancer.
>	A similar amount injected into the blood streams
>	of dogs has produced bone cancers.  However, it is the
>	lung that is the most vulnerable to plutonium.

That's nice.  Do you have any evidence that Sellafield could result in
a human being getting a ten millionth of an ounce of plutonium into
his body?  What about a ten billionth?  Do we need to worry about a 10
trillionth? 

>	The vulnerability of the lung to plutonium exists
>	because plutonium exposed to air ignotes spontaneously.
>	As it burns, it forms numerous tiny particles of plutonium
>	dioxide.  These particles are intensely radioactive. 

Are they any more radioactive then plutonium?  Of course not, but the
propagandists imply that they are without actually saying so.


>There is more but I think that should make the point that plutonium is
>quite a different issue from most (extremely dangerous) nuclear
>waste.

There I'll agree.  Plutonium has a lower danger threshold than most
substances.  HGowever you have presented absolutely no evidence that
Sellafield will even approach those danger levels.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3679 sci.environment:11303 alt.activism:16206 talk.politics.misc:45069