Skip to main content

Web Site Siting: Radiation Answers

One of the scarier things one can contemplate happening is being irradiated, and anything so scary is going to be riven with taboo and fear-driven misinformation - popular culture, never shy to amping up fear, shows victims being baked from the inside, developing ghastly sores, rapidly sickening and dying. Dispelling fears surrounding nuclear energy has been an uphill but mostly successful battle, but radiation and its effects...

So the site Radiationanswers.org is a welcome taboo buster. The site was created by the Health Physics Forum, which describes itself thusly:

The Health Physics Society is a non profit scientific professional organization whose mission is excellence in the science and practice of radiation safety.

What is valuable about the site is that it does not sugar coat its subject matter or try to spin away concerns about radiation. Instead, it contextualizes them so what may be considered fearful and what need not be feared are given their proper due.

Here's how their press release puts it:

The HPS undertook a year-long effort to create a site specifically aimed at providing radiation information to the public because of comments from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein that the radiation industry “has not been sufficiently proactive in educating the public about what is a real danger and what is not.”

The Citizen’s Guide to Radiation is authoritative, scientifically accurate, and understandable in addressing questions being asked by the public about radiation. It was created with guidance from advisory groups such as the American Medical Association, the Electric Power Research Institute, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, and the Center for Construction Research and Training (formerly the Center for Protection of Workers' Rights).

As that list of groups suggests, the most important factors in this site's creation is that it be thorough and truthful and that it can be trusted to educate without institutional or corporate spin. This mirrors NEI's approach to discussing the world of nuclear energy and it is always greatly appreciated when others adopt the same approach (NEI provided a grant for the site, but did not control its creation.) Pay it a visit and see what you think. If you have feedback to make it better, it would surely be welcomed by the Health Physics Forum.

Comments

I would think this site should have some discussion of BEIR VII. Its lack strains credulity.

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

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…