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: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Health Physics, Health, Yucca Mountain

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.

August 21, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog