Skip to main content

Time for a Reality Check

In the fast-moving world of blogs, eleven days is a long time. But even though all that time has passed, I still feel compelled to comment on an article in the Las Vegas Sun, published on October 2. The article, "Long spans for radiation standards leave many cold", discussed objections to radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain.

According to the arguments of antinuclear activist Kristin Schrader-Frechette, standards based on average doses are inadequate. Her example is a release of radiation to a town of 715 people in which one person receives a dose of 10,000 millirems while the remaining 714 people receive doses of 1 millirem each. She points out that such a release would not violate the average individual dose rate limit of 15 millirems per year, but it would impose a dose that she considers unacceptable on one individual.

Ms. Schrader-Frechette has done her math correctly, but she seems out of touch with reality. The absurdity of her example becomes plain if we consider something a bit more familiar. Imagine a town with 715 houses, in which the average annual precipitation is 15 inches; one house receives 10,000 inches per year, and the remaining 714 houses receive 1 inch per year. Who would give serious consideration to a scenario like that?

Ms. Schrader-Frechette also betrays her ignorance of health physics by characterizing a 10,000 millirem dose as "fatal". Lethal doses are typically 40 to 50 times larger.

It seems to me that the Sun's reporters and editors need to exercise their critical thinking skills a bit more vigorously when evaluating what is worth printing. For more information on radiation and its health effects, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I ran into Schrader Freshette in about 1996 debating Yucca Mountain. She is an educated idiot. She claims future generations are also stakeholders in current decisions, which taken to its logical conclusion would lead to paralysis in the present. A big Rawlsian, she is AS SMART as a Post.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …