Low Dose Radiation: Keynotes, Initials and History

Alan Walter opens the conference.
October 1, Pasco WA

Rod Adams post:

Rod Adams and I are covering the Low Rad meeting.  I urge everyone to read his post (which he posted just a few minutes ago) and comment on it.

Would you evacuate your home in the middle of the night because of a radioactive release? This question was during at the meeting. Read the answer here: Making sense from radiation protection controversy

Nonstop Learning

I am now in the morning of the third day of the Low Dose Radiation conference, and it has been non-stop learning. In between the sessions and the poster sessions, it has been hard to post.   To give you an example of what I mean, on Monday morning there were eight presentations, not counting various welcoming remarks.  At lunch, Michael Shellenberger gave a stirring talk.  In the afternoon, there were two panel discussions and four presentations. The poster session is also extraordinarily interesting.  And I haven't even mentioned the handbell concert at breakfast.  When I say "nonstop," I mean nonstop.

I cannot possibly summarize this conference.  That's the bad news.  The good news is that since I can't possibly cover the whole thing, I will just hit some high points, and add plenty of commentary. Starting with Monday morning.

Goals and First Set of Keynotes

Goals: Mike Lawrence, former director of the Hanford site,  described the goals of the conference.  The conference attempts to pull together scientific data on the effects of low-dose radiation.  A major goal is to ensure that radiation protection through evacuation after an accident is done only on scientific grounds, not on primal fear of radiation.  The doses encountered at Fukushima would have led to no deaths or very few, but the evacuation killed over a thousand people. (Some estimates are only 800 people,  but you get the idea. The difference between no deaths and hundreds of deaths is a lot of deaths.)

Brenner talk: The first keynote was by David Brenner of Columbia University.  He supported LNT as the proper measure for low-dose radiation. The two arguments that he used to support the LNT theory really struck me, but not in a good way.  He used the idea that there is a cell, and it gets zapped with radiation.  We know quite a bit about high doses, but as we lower the dose, we can expect that each cell will only be zapped one time.  Then, as we lower the dose further, fewer cells will be zapped, but each cell which is zapped will be zapped pretty much the same way.  He admitted that repair mechanisms exist, but felt they were the same (or could be considered to be the same) if every cell was zapped once, or if only half the cells were zapped.  Therefore, he considers LNT to be correct.

My opinion: this was an overly-simplistic gedanken experiment. Later in the meeting, I heard many scientists describing the complex interactions of radiation, expression of genes, DNA repair, and so forth.

He also claimed that radiation damage to a fetus was another reason to support LNT, because fetuses do not have the confounding factors that adult humans have: no smokers, drinkers, etc. So damage to a fetus can stand in for damage for adults.  My opinion: "I'll drink to that. And while I am at it, I will have a thalidomide pill, if I can find one, in case I get a little nauseated."  In other words, many things that harm a fetus (alcohol, thalidomide) are not harmful to an adult, especially at low doses.  Many choices that would have been unwise for me to make while I was pregnant are no particular problem to me now. His fetus-centric argument strikes me as a thin reed to hold such an immense regulatory structure.

McClellan talk. The second keynote was by Roger McClellan, an internationally known expert in inhalation toxicology. He has worked in both radiation toxicology and chemical toxicology, and understands the difficulties of obtaining good data at low doses.  Brenner's conclusions about low dosages were clear (but wrong in my opinion), while McClellan was nuanced. McClellan said that all industries, de facto, use ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) for exposure, basically because no CEO wants to get sued.  He concluded that poverty is far more dangerous to human health than the low-dose issues of nuclear energy.  (I hope I am reporting this correctly.) I enjoyed his talk, and hope to read it in full at some time, to report on it more accurately.

The March of the Initials

The next part of the meeting was what I call the March of the Initials. At this point, I need to encourage people to go to the program tab of the Low Radiation Dose Conference website.

Website for Program: http://lowdoserad.org
Pdf of program: http://www.umtanum.com/TopicalManagedFiles/_Program/Program.pdf

The March of the Initials is the list of regulatory agencies, marching by in rapid fire, who presented their approaches to radiation protection. They had twenty minutes per agency.  These agencies included NRC, IAEA, UNSCEAR and others.  I was somewhat surprised (I am naive) about how different these agencies are in their approach.  David Pawel of EPA could have been giving Brenner's talk, while  Patricia Wieland of UNSCEAR acknowledged the limitations of understanding any possible levels of good or harm at low doses. She ended her talk by recommending that "regulators...use the old concept of ‘de minimis non curat prætor’ and exempt from regulations low-dose exposure situations that do not warrant control."  (Lots of us wanted to kiss Ms. Wieland, but we refrained.)

Note: Wieland was standing in for Abel Gonzalez, whose name is on the paper but could not attend the meeting.

As this point, I encourage people to go the website for the program, go to the program tab, and download the zip file of the Flash Drive for more information.

Micheal Shellenberger and History

Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, spoke at the luncheon, with a fascinating talk on "The Making of Radiation Panic."  History teaches us the way forward.  To some extent, the bomb-making scientists (such as Oppenheimer) found themselves displaced in the public esteem by the reactor-making leaders (such as Rickover). They did not necessarily like this fact. Also, many of the older scientists, including Einstein, had the Utopian idea that the bomb would lead to a world government, which would mostly supersede the nation-states.  This also did not happen. It's a complex story, and Shellenberger told it well.

It became a battle between the idea of promoting world peace through promoting fear of radiation, and promoting world prosperity through the use of nuclear power.  I believe Shellenberger is writing a book on this subject.  I will be eager to read it.

So Much More

There's so much more to say. But if I don't post now, I will be late to the meeting!

My Comment to the NRC in favor of abandoning LNT and ALARA for rule making

Comment on the petition

Recently, three distinguished scientists have filed an NRC petition, asking the NRC to re-visit the radiation protection rule-making which is based on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption, and the consequent ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) rules.

I posted about this yesterday, also.

Here's the petition in the Federal Register. The comment period is open until September 8, so you have a few days to file your comment.  Please comment.

Update: The comment period is now open until November 19.  (Yes, it surprised me, also.  See the third page of this pdf.)

My Own Comment to the NRC

I support these petitions to base radiation protection on science, not on the assumed linear relationship between harm and dose.

There are very few biological systems that have linear responses between levels of dose.  For example, selenium is both a dreadful poison and an element necessary for life and reproduction.   The effect depends on the dose.  It is not a linear straight-line relationship in which selenium is always harmful but gets more harmful as the dose gets higher.  At low levels selenium is beneficial.  At high doses, it is harmful.

Similarly, the effect of radiation on biological systems is not straightforward.  People living in the mountains, or on granite bedrock, have no more cancer or birth defects than people living with less background radiation.  There is some evidence that radiation is beneficial at low doses: for example, recent experiments in which low doses of radiation extend the life of fruit flies.

(Fruit flies are often used for experiments on genetics.  Example of recent work: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-weak-doses-prolong-life-female.html   )

Whether or not this type of effect (hormesis) is present for humans is still unclear, in my opinion. But it is clear that, at normal background levels at least, a little more radiation does no harm. The linear-no-threshold hypothesis is unproven, useless, and unreasonable.

What the linear non-threshold assumption (for that is all that it is) has done is simply add to expense and anxiety. It leads to ALARA, which is very bad rule-making.

Imagine that all regulations were based on ALARA.  Let's say my town water supply meets all the criteria for purity that such water supplies must meet.  I could go to my select board and insist that they lower the concentration of a certain contaminant by 50%.  They would say that the town supply met all the requirements for water purity.  I would respond that they are being unREASONABLE.  With an ALARA-regulated water supply, if they CAN lower the concentration REASONABLY (and I get to decide what is reasonable), they are required to do so!  It doesn't matter that the water is already safe to drink.  If they were just willing to spend more money, it could be even…well, not safer, but certainly more expensive water!

In short, ALARA must be rescinded.  The very word "reasonable" is unreasonable.  "Reasonable" according to whom?  How much money is it "reasonable" to spend to achieve yet-lower results? And whose money gets spent this way?

Society has many problems and limited resources to address these problems.  I recently read an article showing that NOx (nitrogen oxides produced in combustion processes, and a precursor of ozone and smog) can hide out in soot deposits and re-emerge later, in a more virulently active form.  Perhaps cleaning the soot from city buildings might make city air more wholesome! http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33970233

We have many real gains in public health available, if we can spend the money.

Spending money on radiation ALARA (make it lower and lower and lower) is completely unreasonable.  Unless you are prepared to decide to evacuate Denver for its high background radiation, I hope you will stop insisting on regulation according to LNT and ALARA.

UPDATED: Nuclear Energy Blog Carnival 236: Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee.  The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.  Here we go!

At Fukushima, Radiation Decreases in Turbine Building Basements
From the Hiroshima Syndrome's Fukushima Commentary - Leslie Corrice

Fukushima Wastewater: Some Good News

The Japanese Press routinely reports on sudden increases in wastewater radioactivity at F. Daiichi. However, they fail to report on what is going right. For at least a year, the activity levels in the turbine basements of units #1-4 have been steadily dropping. This is definitely a success story, but it does not seem newsworthy enough for the Japanese Press.

Yucca Post-Closure Safety Report Finally Released

From ANS Nuclear Cafe - Jim Hopf 

NRC Releases Yucca Post-Closure Safety Evaluation Report (finally)

 Jim Hopf details the recent release of the Safety Evaluation Report on Yucca, what it means, and more importantly what's likely to be done and not likely to be done as a result of it.  Nuclear waste is an entity we're prepared to deal with, Hopf argues, and for that reason Yucca should be opened and utilized to satisfy the Federal Government's legal obligation to take spent fuel from nuclear plant sites. 

Time for a Battle and an Update on Radiation Risk
Atomic Insights - Rod Adams

Shaping public perceptions of radiation risk

An epic struggle with important health, safety, cost and energy abundance implications is shaping up with regard to the way that the officially sanctioned science and regulatory bodies treat the risks and benefits associated with using ionizing radiation at low doses and dose rates for medical uses, industrial uses and power production.

We must make sure that this battle for science, hearts and minds is not as asymmetrical as the one fought in the period between 1954-1964. During that battle, a very interested Rockefeller Foundation provided the funding and numerous key influencers during a successful campaign to firmly establish the myth that radiation is dangerous even at the lowest possible doses.

More Battles: The Supposed "Clean Power Plan"

Carbon Dioxide

From ANS Nuclear Cafe - Nicholas Thompson

 The Details of the Clean Power Plan: So You Want to See the Numbers

Nick Thompson gives the details you need to know about the EPA Clean Power proposal, and why it's not the boon for nuclear energy some have lauded it as.  Includes background links for more information.  Includes links for submitting YOUR comments on the plan this weekend. Comments due by December 1!

Vermont Yankee: Consequences of a Battle We Lost

From NEI Nuclear Notes - Meredith Angwin

Pain from Vermont Yankee Closing Spreads Far and Wide

Meredith Angwin documents the spreading pain of Vermont Yankee's closing--starting with the plant employees who will be laid off, and pain propagating through the local towns, on to the grid, and up to the state level. Her post, at NEI Nuclear Notes, is part of an NEI report on closing the plant, a report that includes the effect of the plant closing on New England's energy crisis and on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  The full report: Closing Vermont Yankee: Carbon, Market Impacts of Closing the Vermont Yankee Plant.

Existing power plants
at Hinkley Point
Wikipedia

Finances and Risk in Europe
Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman

Areva’s financial crisis gets worse. Is Hinkley Point at risk?

The financial future of the French state-owned nuclear giant has become less certain and some worry it may threaten the viability of the UK’s Hinkley Point 3200 MW new nuclear build.

A Nuclear Opponent and His Lack of Credibility
Northwest Clean Energy - Meredith Angwin
Why Do They Listen to Alvarez?
At the Northwest Clean Energy blog, Meredith Angwin notes that Robert Alvarez has now written a report about Columbia Generating Station. This report rehashes the testimony he gave in Vermont about Vermont Yankee in 2013.  She reviews his qualifications and his report and asks: Why Do They Listen to Alvarez?

Safety Culture Everywhere

Graphic from Wikipedia

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus
Trains and Boats and Planes...and Nuclear Power Plants
Gail Marcus writes at Nuke Power Talk about her presentation on safety culture at a meeting in Chicago, and her subsequent experience with a failure of safety culture. Yes, on her way home from the meeting, she had a first-hand experience with a safety culture failure.  (Gail...did you ever find out how the plane's wing hit a barbed wire fence?)  All's well that ends well, but her trip home pointed out how important safety culture is, whether on trains, boats, planes or in nuclear power plants.

Monazite (thorium mineral)

Nuclear Power and Noah's Ark
Energy Reality Project - Rick Maltese
Noah Nuke Advocate
Rick Maltese's parable begs the question: Will we wake up to the reality in time? Obviously the warnings were there for Noah but when will we know? We know what we've been doing wrong but do not know how to change. Time to act. Alone or collectively.

Fundraiser: Crowd Funding for a Pro-Nuclear Presence at AGU
ThoriumMSR - Rick Maltese
Renewed efforts to spread the word about MSRs bigger than ever
Rick Maltese plans to go to the annual AGU (American Geophysical Union) Conference.  Approximately 24,000 scientists and policymakers come to this conference in San Francisco, which runs from Monday December 15 to Friday December 19. Rick will be representing the Thorium Energy Alliance of Silicon Valley (TESV), and his own Energy Reality Project.   Join him at TESV booth 2617: this booth sits directly across of the booth of the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Contribute to crowdfunding Maltese's important effort.

Nuclear Good News on New Builds
Next Big Future - Brian Wang

South Korea approved 4 new nuclear reactors other global nuclear approvals and completions

Brian Wang reports on new builds, commissioning tests and more in South Korea, Vietnam, China and Russia.

China's 2020 Energy Plans

Next Big Future - Brian Wang

China's 2020 energy plans include quite a bit of nuclear energy.

Brian Wang reviews China's plan for its energy mix by 2020.  This includes deepwater oil drilling, reducing coal use to 62% of electricity generation, and considerable new nuclear coming on-line.  According to Chinese planning documents, fast reactors will be an important part of the energy mix in the future.

Plant Site Boundary Radiation Measurements and More Unreasoning ALARA

Measuring Low Level Radiation At the Site Boundary

The NRC requires careful control of the maximum radiation dose at the site boundary of a nuclear power plant.  For a non-specialist like myself, the NRC document 10 CFR Part 20 is not easy to interpret.  Plus, power plants in Vermont must meet even more stringent state requirements.  To explain the situation, I will quote a  Vermont Department of Health press release on site monitoring at Vermont Yankee:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits radiation doses for the general public to 100 millirem per year. The limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 25 millirem per year from radioactivity in water, air and soil. The Vermont Department of Health limits are more restrictive – 20 millirem per year.

In other words, the plant-caused radiation at the site boundary in Vermont must be less than 20 millirems above background radiation, total, per year. Indeed, the radiation at Vermont Yankee plant boundary is at a such a low level that it  cannot be measured easily and reliably, except by specialists.

Detecting 20 millirems per year over the background level of around 300 millirems per year: this is not easy.

Measurements disagree

Predictably, at the low levels of radiation required by Vermont,  measurements are difficult and results can conflict.  Sure enough, Entergy measurements and Vermont Department of Health measurements disagreed.  Basically, low levels of radiation release have to be measured by specialists in measuring low-level radiation.

To resolve the conflict between the Entergy measurements and the Vermont measurements, Entergy engaged Oak Ridge Affiliated Universities (ORAU) to do a third set of measurements.  ORAU has a group that specializes in radiation measurements. The local opponent groups objected to this choice.

The opponents' main accusation was that ORAU was part of the industry and could not be trusted.  Another accusation was that hiring ORAU was a way to fool Vermont citizens into thinking that Entergy had hired Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  (ORAU is basically part of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It's complicated, and has to do with the difficulty the government has in hiring temporary employees, graduate students, etc. )

Meanwhile, the opponents objections to ORAU and the measurements were not mild-mannered. There were shouted accusations.  I saw a man from VPIRG completely blindside an Entergy employee at a public meeting. The Entergy man on the panel had no idea that the contract with ORAU was going to lead to shouted accusations of being a liar.  It was a sad sight.

However, the Entergy measurements were correct.

But finally, the whole thing was over. The measurements were reviewed, and the Vermont Department of Health issued a final report on the boundary measurements. Here's a quote from the Vermont Department of Health report:

The report concludes that the measurement methodology used by the Vermont Department of Health since 1973 was less accurate than current methods used by Vermont Yankee.

And yes, here's another quote from the same report:

At no time has the dosage from the Vermont Yankee plant posed a measurable risk to public health.

Vermont Yankee was in compliance with Vermont's strict radiation protection laws.

ALARA strikes again

A great deal of money and energy was spent on the boundary-line dose issue, and nuclear opponents took every opportunity to humiliate people from Entergy about the measurements and the contractor.   But what did it all mean?  What was accomplished?

• Was anybody protected from harm by these repeated measurements of the very small amounts of radiation? No. 
• Was a great deal of money spent on these measurements? Yes. 
• Do ALARA and LNT encourage the fear of the least little bit of radiation, and do they imply that we must constantly strive to reduce even tiny amounts of radiation? Yes.
• Must we strive to reduce amounts of radiation that are actually so low they are hard to measure? Yes.
• Do ALARA and LNT help our country have reliable, affordable electricity? No.

I encourage my readers to share their own ALARA stories.

Tritium: An example of Unreasoning ALARA

Unreasoning ALARA: The need for examples

In Protecting Against Nothing: The Failings of ALARA, I described the ALARA strategy (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) for radiation safety.  This strategy is based upon the idea that there is no safe level of radiation, so radiation protection must constantly attempt to "do better."   The words "reasonably achievable" can be interpreted in unreasonable and expensive ways.

In contrast, protection from contaminants in drinking water is regulated on the basis of drinking water standards: concentrations of harmful substances are kept lower than agreed-upon values.  This is a better and more cost-effective strategy than the ever-more-expensive strategy of ALARA.

I would like to give some examples here. The need for examples was raised (in rather insulting phrasing) in a comment on an earlier post by Howard Shaffer. This is my understanding of what the questioner actually meant to ask:

"You have explained how ' reasonably' achievable could be misused in a regulatory context.  But can you give examples of where ALARA has actually been misused, examples of where excessive radiation protection measures have led to unnecessary costs? I want examples of the supposed excess costs of ALARA in terms of day-to-day operations. This isn't a question about accident prevention costs."

In a few posts, I will describe examples of the unreasonable costs of ALARA at Vermont Yankee.  These are cases in which Vermont Yankee had to go to great expense about radiation protection or paying for elaborate radiation measurements---for trivial amounts of radiation. The levels of radiation had no possible public health consequences.

Today's example: tritium.

Tritium and the Zero-Discharge Plant

Vermont Yankee is a zero-discharge plant.  No tritium must leave the plant boundaries. Why is this?  There is nothing wrong with small discharges of tritium. Canadian plants legally release thousands of curies of tritium per year.

So, Vermont Yankee had a leak in a pipe. The pipe was in a concrete conduit, but eventually, some tritium found its way out of the conduit and into the soil and water.

The small leak was a huge problem for the plant. It cost the plant a great deal of trouble and expense to find, fix and "remediate" this leak, even though the leak released less than a curie of tritium. Meanwhile, the plant gathered a great deal of negative publicity for having had the leak.

In contrast, exit signs containing about ten curies of tritium can be shipped through the mail (or at least they could be at the time that Howard Shaffer bought his tritium sign about three years ago).

In further contrast, Canadian plants are allowed to discharge thousands of curies of tritium per year.  There are no health effects in Canada from these discharges.

Though I posted extensively on tritium, Rod Adams has the best post on the subject. 

http://atomicinsights.com/how-much-tritium-leaked-from-vermont-yankee-before-the-leak-was-stopped/

Adams compares the Vermont Yankee leak with the tritium levels just north of the border.  Vermont Yankee's leak was less than one curie of tritium, while Canadian plants routinely discharge over 5000 curies of tritium a year.

Remediation 

Vermont Yankee found and fixed the leak within a few weeks.

Then,  Vermont Yankee began "remediation."  They pumped groundwater and disposed of it as radiologically contaminated. By doing so, they captured most of the tritium.

Meanwhile, famous hydrological engineers (such as Governor Shumlin) asked Vermont Yankee to pump even more groundwater, for further safety.  Vermont Yankee agreed to pump more.  I don't know how much they spent on pumping, but I suspect the amount was non-trivial.

All for less tritium than is held by a single exit sign.

ALARA Plumbs Some New Depths

As low as reasonably achievable reached some new depths with the great Vermont Yankee tritium scare story.  Of course, a plant should fix a leak if it has one.  Even if nothing but super-pure water is leaking, you fix leaks.  But the remediation?  All the pumping? Large amounts of money and time were devoted to protecting the public from---trivial amounts of radioactivity.

It is often thus with ALARA.  More to follow.

Protecting Against Nothing: The Failings of ALARA

Partial list of EPA drinking water regulations

ALARA and Reason

In Howard Shaffer's recent guest post: "No Safe Dose" Is Bad Science,  Shaffer described the questionable science behind the Linear Non Threshold (LNT) standard for radiation protection.  In my introductory remarks for his post, I wrote this sentence:

"Protecting" against very low levels of radiation increases the cost of nuclear plants, but the LNT (Linear Non Threshold) model says we must protect against any level of radiation, no matter how small.

An anonymous commenter asked a question about this statement.  He didn't ask directly about LNT.  He asked about LNT's daughter:  ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). LNT claims that no radiation dose is safe,  and ALARA claims that we must continually attempt to decrease the amount of any radiation dose.

So, back to the commenter's question.   I had claimed that LNT forces us to protect against "any level of radiation," and he asked:

How would you reconcile that statement with the actual U.S. regulatory regime, which relies on the As Low As Reasonably Achievable approach? (Emphasis in the original statement.)

Mineral Water

"Reasonable" is Unreasonable

My answer (edited a bit from the original that I posted).

The term "reasonable" is intrinsically unreasonable. How is reasonable defined? By whom is it defined?

Here's a simplified example of the difference between "reasonable" levels and a threshold level. My town water meets threshold limits for safety. My town provides town water and it sends residents the analysis results for their water. I am proud to say that our town has an excellent municipal water department. The water is safe to drink: all ions and all contaminants are below the EPA levels that define safety for those materials. 

Let's say the EPA safety limit for "A" is 10 parts per million (ppm).  Let's say, in the town water, "A" is at the level of 5 ppm. 

The water is safe. 

Town water and threshold limits

The water is safe, and people can't go to the town select board and insist that new water treatment methods are available and therefore must be acquired by the town.  They can't insist that the town needs to lower the level of "A" from half the EPA safety limit to a quarter of the limit. People can't force the town to upgrade its water system just because those people believe that the new lower limit is "reasonably" achievable. Once the  town water has met  its threshold for safety, further water treatment is not required.

That's the difference between a threshold level--and the unreasonable term "reasonable." 

• A threshold is a number. A system (water supply, power plant) can do a measurement and prove that it meets the criteria. 
• In contrast, the term "reasonable" is open to endless expensive interpretations.

---------

Note: The commenter then asked a second question.  I will answer it in a separate post.

"No Safe Dose" is Bad Science. Updated. Guest Post by Howard Shaffer

Linear Function Graphs
from Wikipedia

Update: Robert Hargraves new Video "Radiation is Safe Within Limits" is now posted at Rod Adams blog. Adams gives a shout-out to this post, also.  These two posts make a very good pair!


 The non-existent risk of low level radiation

At his blog, Atomic Insights, Rod Adams recently posted Resolving the issue of the science of biological effects of low level radiation.  In this post, he encouraged people to sign a letter urging the American Nuclear Society (ANS) to address the issue of unreasonable fear of low levels of radiation.  There is now a great deal of evidence that, below a threshold value, increases in radiation exposure do not lead to increases in cancer.

Adams provided a link to the letter, which urges the  ANS to ask for a review of newer evidence (studies done after 1956) concerning the use of Linear Non Threshold (LNT)  to predict cancer deaths from radiation.  LNT asserts that there is no threshold for increased cancer risk.

 "Protecting" against very low levels of radiation increases the cost of nuclear plants, but the LNT model says we must protect against any level of radiation, no matter how small.  Rod and I are happy to assert that LNT increases the cost of building and operating nuclear plants, but does not lead to an increase in public health outcomes.

The crowd goes wild

Once Rod had posted, the comments came thick and fast, starting with a one-line comment that Rod was tilting at windmills.   (I encourage you to read the comments and join the conversation.)

I  was very impressed with Howard Shaffer's comment, and I obtained his permission to use it as a guest post, as below.  I did a few edits, with his permission.

------

The consequences of assuming No Safe Dose: By Howard Shaffer 

Bob Hargraves, Meredith Angwin and I have all gone  head to head with the nuclear opponents and the Helen Caldicotts brought in to Vermont. We have gone through all the logical arguments on cost, alternatives etc. We needed to be face to face, up close in public meetings in order to FEEL the fear that is driving their single minded opposition. Fear that drives elderly ladies to repeatedly chain themselves to the plant gates and get arrested, and many other examples.

As for evidence, see the election results here in Vermont.

Let me repeat part of my post from ANS Nuclear Cafe, A CAN-CAN Dance around Vermont Yankee Decommissioning:

In Vermont, in the very emotional political fight over Vermont Yankee, we directly experienced the effects of the misuse of BEIR VII. Deb Katz  http://www.nukebusters.org/ and others endlessly repeat “any amount of radiation is harmful” to energize the opponents AND make EVERY event at the plant seem like the “sky is falling.”

Enough FEAR has been created to keep driving the opponents, so they always find a new issue. Now it is “all fuel in Dry Casks NOW” which is also being used in the SONGS fight.

We need to get a BEIR VIII. I believe that it will take Congress requiring it in an appropriation bill to get it done. We also need Congress to set the time limits on exposure from High Level Waste Repositories to a few hundred years, not thousands as decided by a court case. end post

Perhaps ANS can get Ann Bisconti to do a poll asking what people believe about radiation.

The Fear Campaign

The LNT issue is in the middle of the largest issues of our time, starting at the middle of the last century.

• The Environment as limited. History shows that we believed the earth to have unlimited resources and be an unlimited sewer. (At one point, the chemical industry saw chemical injection underground as a legitimate disposal method. Where were the studies on the effects done before this was started?) Fear of fouling our own nest and ruining the earth is legitimate.
•  Fear of nuclear war. Einstein was right that World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.
• Out of these came fear of planetary pollution from atmospheric weapons testing. The BEIR committee was persuaded by powerful personalities to extend the evidence from the excess cancers in atomic bomb victims to low levels of exposure and to “zero” exposure (which does not exist). This was done to boost the fear campaign they thought was needed to get the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. 

"Ban the Bomb" was a Fear Campaign. I agree with the goals of that particular campaign.  But  history shows that Fear Campaigns get out of hand and have a life of their own. Forgive me for using Racism, Suppression of Women, and Anti-Semitism to name a few. None of these are supported by evidence, but take a long time to erase.

Howard C Shaffer III

The irony of nuclear power is that it meets these fears by providing a bridge – a long one- to a planet of total sustainability. The opponents of nuclear power have never answered the question of HOW we get from here to there. For example,”What do we do about Coal Miners?”

We who believe in nuclear power have a lot of work to do. It’s time to face up, as Rod says, to the realization that the public needs to be told that some of them bought into a Fear Campaign that outgrew its original purpose and the facts were not true. The campaign was well motivated but the wrong approach.  It is time to get back to the facts.

New EPA Radiation Guidelines: Please Comment Today or Tomorrow

New Guidelines for Response to Radioactivity Releases

The EPA published new guidelines for response to radioactivity releases.  These guidelines can be considered to be "in light of" Fukushima, where hasty evacuations caused hundreds of deaths.  Here's  the EPA announcement.  Tomorrow is the deadline for comments on these guidelines.
You can email comments to:
a-and-r-docket@epa.gov
Be sure to mention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268.

EPA and IAEA

An ANS blog post describes the guidelines: New EPA Guidelines for Response to Radioactivity Releases by Jim Hopf.  Among other things, the new guidelines say that a public dose level of 2000 mrem the first year and 500 mrem in subsequent years is the guideline for evacuations.  Apparently, this is not much of a change from previous guidelines.

Meanwhile, the IAEA has issued a publication called Actions to Protect the Public in an Emergency due to Severe Conditions at a Light Water Reactors. (Note: that link leads to a long pdf which will take time to download.)  The IAEA publication might be considered the international version of the EPA proposed guidelines. It seems more complete in its analysis, and more liberal in its guidelines for health and safety.

Okay.  I haven't done the hard work of comparing these two documents, but it seems that both sets of guidelines are well thought out. The EPA document has been broadly attacked, and it is worth supporting it with a brief email. I did.

A little context on the numbers. You can get about 500 mrem a year by living in the granite hills around here, for heaven's sake. According to the NRC, the average American gets 620 mrem per year: half from background and half from medical, air travel, etc. Move uphill on a granite mountain and the background dose will surely go up.

Hargraves Review of the EPA Guidelines

Dr. Robert Hargraves has reviewed the EPA and IAEA documents, and this is the email he wrote to the EPA in support of their new guidelines. Basically, he concludes that the EPA document is over conservative.

Dr. Robert Hargraves
author
THORIUM Energy cheaper than coal

EPA,

I appreciate the importance of your work to guide emergency response in the event of a radiological emergency. The lack of such guidelines for Fukushima drastically increased the harm to the public from overly aggressive evacuation and relocation. Having rational guidelines in place will strike a balance between radiological harm and relocation harm. You published PAG Manual, http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/er/pag-manual-interim-public-comment-4-2-2013.pdf and asked for comments.

The IAEA has just published a similar document, Actions to Protect the Public in an Emergency due to Severe Conditions at a Light Water Reactor, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/EPR-NPP_PPA_web.pdf. I recommend that the EPA draft document be compared to this IAEA document and that the differences be explained, rationalized, or eliminated. It makes little sense for documents from EPA and IAEA to differ. Why should US guidelines be so different from international guidelines?

The differences are enormous. The EPA guideline document is far too conservative. For example, on page 7 of the EPA PAG draft, relocation of the public is recommended if radiation doses will exceed 20 mSv in the first year, or 5 mSv/year thereafter.

"2 rem (20 mSv) projected dose first year
Subsequent years, 0.5 rem (5 mSv)/year
projected dose"

In the IAEA document, page 59, relocation is recommended only for radiation doses exceeding 200 mSv/year (25 microSv/hour).

EPA's guidelines are excessively conservative, by a factor of 10 (200 mSv/20 mSv) in the first year, and a factor of 40 (200 mSv/5 mSv) in the subsequent years. Repeating my observation...

EPA RECOMMENDED DOSE LIMITS ARE TOO LOW BY A FACTOR OF 10 TO 40 !

Over 1000 people died near Fukushima from the stress of unnecessary relocation. The EPA-recommended guidelines will cause similar, unnecessary public harm in a US radiological emergency.

I recommend that the EPA review its draft recommendations and set radiological dose exposure limits based on evidence of observed public harm from ionizing radiation.

139th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers: Right Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Yes Vermont Yankee is proud to be the host of the 139th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers.  After a quiet holiday season, the bloggers have roared back with terrific posts!     The three subjects this time are Radiation, Energy, and Politics.  So, let's get started!

Radiation

Radiation: No Effects on Health 

Perhaps the most important link in this blog is to James Conca's article at Forbes: Like We've Been Saying, Radiation is Not a Big Deal.  

Conca describes the very recent United Nations (UNSCEAR) report on radiation risk, which  paid special attention to the consequences of Fukushima. Here's a quote from the Conca article:   "UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima.  No effects."

In short, the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model is simply....wrong.  This is an important post.  I encourage you to read it.

Radiation: Over-Fearing the Food

Meanwhile, Japanese regulators have been trying to reassure people in Japan that their food is safe by setting very low levels for allowed radiation.  As Leslie Corrice describes in Hiroshima Syndrome, this policy has hit an embarrassing snag.   Japan’s Contamination Limits Way Too Low (January 7 post)

Japan's new, too-low standards for radiation in food has hit a snag. Mushrooms from Aomori Prefecture have been banned because of cesium levels slightly above the new limit, but the cesium did not come from the Fukushima accident. Unless the standards are raised to a more-reasonable level, more and more of these disconcerting situations will happen. (Note, the Conca article also has a table about these unrealistic standards. )

Radiation: Using It For Safe Food

Radioisotopes made in nuclear reactors power Mars and deep space probes, and make astronauts' food safe to eat. In two recent posts, Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues urges the fast expansion of radioisotope applications here on earth

Aplin wonders why irradiation makes food safe for astronauts, but we don't use radiation for keeping food safe on earth.  Irradiated food keeps astronauts healthy and productive. Why can’t we earth dwellers have it?  Aplin notes that safe-to-eat beef would be a pleasure. He gets tired of the frequent recalls on beef products.

Radiation: Using It for Heat

Aplin also notes that radioactive isotopes can be used for heat, and have been used that way in the past, in the arctic. Isotopes for heat: an old new idea whose time came, went, and has come again

Radiation: Using It for Poetry

At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams has a guest post from Engineer-Poet.  What's This Stuff Called Radiation. Rod rarely has guest posts, and this is the first open-source poem as a guest post.  Some of the comments are also poetry. Some are limericks.  All are fun!

Nuclear Energy

And on that note, we will turn to the subject of Nuclear Energy, past, present and future.  They are all linked.   For example: Enrico Fermi is the past, right? Well, maybe not so past...some of his reactor designs are part of the future.

Nuclear Energy: Enrico Fermi and the Sodium Fast Reactor

Carl Holder writes 70 Years Ago:- Dr. Enrico Fermi at usa-cargo.info. In Chicago 70 years ago, a team of scientists lead by Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Enrico Fermi, created the first controlled nuclear fission.

Dr. Fermi envisioned a future that needed abundant nuclear energy for the production of energy and isotopes.  He calculated that the uranium resource could be used much more efficiently with a fast reactor.  So he designed a more efficient, sustainable fission system: the sodium fast reactor.

Nuclear Energy: Using the "Waste"

Sodium Cooled reactor schematic

At the Atomic Show, Rod Adams has a podcast from one of the most respected mystery men of the nuclear community.  NNadir is a prolific pro-nuclear blogger at the very liberal blog Daily Kos. On the Atomic Show with Rod Adams, NNadir and Adams discuss: What do you do with the waste?  (hint...it isn't waste...it's useful...Rod suggests listening to the talk with a periodic table along for reference...)

Nuclear Energy: The Enrichment Process

Robert Hayes, at Science and Technology Blog, describes Uranium Enrichment at URENCO USA (in southeast New Mexico). 

Nuclear Energy: Using It for Military Energy Sources

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus makes note of some of the recent proposals to have the military support the development of new energy technologies, such as wind power. In fact, the concept is far from new, as nuclear power owes its early development to military support, not only for weapons development, but also for submarine and ship propulsion.  Energy R and D and the Military: Historic Partners.

Nuclear Energy: A New Fuel for Power Uprates

Brian Wang, at Next Big Future, describes an investor presentation and analysis of LightBridge's annular metal fuel for uprating the power in nuclear reactors. 

The Lightbridge presentation describes the economic case and technical details of their annular metallic fuel for uprating the power in nuclear reactors. They expect regulatory approval for the new fuel by 2018, and commercial use a few years after that.  The post also includes graphs from an economic analysis of future power prices, by Pace Global. Using this fuel, increased power generation will have a levelized cost of 20-30$ per MWH which is less than half the projected cost of coal and natural gas, or of regular nuclear construction

Nuclear Energy: The New Builds are Happening

At Things Worse Than Nuclear Power, one of the first blog posts of 2013 shows that 2012 wasn't the end of the world for nuclear, either. There are 167 proposed nuclear builds world-wide, and 63 under construction.  Vive la nucléaire 2013!

Politics

We can't escape it, but we can blog about it. Politics.

Politics: No Holiday from Politics in Vermont

Vermont Public Service Board
at a recent hearing

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Howard Shaffer's post No Holiday from Politics has the latest from the legal and political fronts concerning the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant -- the courts, the legislature, the grid operator, the river, the year ahead.  While the plant itself continues to operate very well, generating nearly three-fourths of all electricity generated in Vermont without incident -- the year ahead nonetheless looks to feature drama within the courtroom and without.  With many good links.

Politics: The Court Cases of Vermont Yankee

Right here at Yes Vermont Yankee, we cover the three upcoming hearings and court cases (you know, the ones happening next week) at Three Vermont Yankee Hearings: The Week of Living Lawyerly.  There's a hearing at the court of appeals in New York City, another at the Supreme Court in Vermont, and a third at the Public Service Board in Vermont.  Get your background information and scorecard here!

Politics: Pro-Uranium Democrat, Dick Saslaw

In Virginia, the re-opening of a uranium mine has become a rallying point for anti-nuclear activists.  In her "I Dig U Mining" blog, Andrea Jennetta writes about a Virginia senator: Senator Dick Saslaw--Fellow Democrats, Follow His Lead.   As Jennetta writes:  Yesterday Senator Dick Saslaw announced his unequivocal support for lifting Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining. He says he’s convinced that modern technologies and strict regulations will ensure that it’s done safely and without harming the environment.

It's always great to end the Carnival on an upbeat note!  Have a great week and a future of Nuclear Energy!

119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

The 119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is here today at Yes Vermont Yankee!  I am so pleased with the great blog posts in this Carnival.

I just recently added a set of Share This buttons at the right of the blog.  Please use them to spread the word of the Carnival. Facebook, email and Twitter are right up-top. The Plus button gives you many more choices, such as Stumble-Upon, Reddit and Pinterest. It's easy to spread the word. Just click the button!

Now, on to the Carnival.  To me, a major theme of this Carnival is the difficulty of communicating about nuclear energy.

Fukushima Communication
Let's start with an important Fukushima report and video at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Video interview with ANS Special Committee on Fukushima Co-Chair: Michael Corradini

Dr. Michael Corradini

The leadership of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) commissioned the American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima to provide a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer recommendations based on lessons learned from their study of the event.

Dr. Michael Corradini is president of the ANS, and he is also co-chair of the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima. In this video,  Dr. Corradini provides an update on the Special Committee’s work, including the release of the committee’s final report. He also announces as an embedded topical meeting on Fukushima that will take place at the upcoming 2012 ANS Winter Meeting in San Diego, Nov 11-15.

Health Communication

At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams asks why radiation health professionals are so reluctant to talk about radiation hormesis.

Radiation Protection Profession – Hiding Health Benefits of Low Level Radiation (aka Hormesis)

Rod shares some comments from an experienced group of professionals about the reluctance of radiation protection professionals to discuss hormesis. Ted Rockwell, who was troubleshooter at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project and later served as Admiral Rickover’s technical director when Naval Reactors developed the first nuclear powered submarine (USS Nautilus) and the first commercial light water reactor (Shippingport) provided the first comment.

Aside: Ted's background information is provided to show that he is not only deeply experienced in nuclear energy and its associated radiation, but he is also a rather mature 90 years old and still going strong.

Energy Communication

At Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik discusses the role of cultural signaling in the energy discussion.

Cultural Signaling and Energy

At the Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik asks the question of how much cultural signaling factors play a role in energy politics. Specifically, how much of support for energy sources like coal (and likewise, renewables) come more from that they say about the values and identities over more rational study of environmental and economic trade-offs?

(Skutnik starts his discussion with a look at why the Friends of Coal plate is the most popular custom license plate in Kentucky.)

Economics Communication

Quite a few  interesting posts  in this category.  

Nuclear Costs

Let's start with Brian Wang at Next Big Future, examining anti-nuclear bias in a Guardian assessment of nuclear power costs

Guardian Analysis of Nuclear Power has the Typical Bias

Brazilian Oil Platform Wikipedia
Expensive equipment

A Guardian UK analysis of nuclear power has the usual bias. Oliver Tickell's analysis has - At a construction cost of about US$10 billion per reactor, we would need to dedicate US$110 trillion, or about two years' gross world product, while also providing for long-term liabilities to replace the new fossil fuel generation for expected energy demand growth. However, about 90% of the reactors will be built in or by China, South Korea, Russia and India. The costs will be two to four times less.  In total the costs for nuclear energy to replace all additional fossil fuel for the next 35 years would be more in range of $30 trillion. The analysis is not complete because the comparison of costs needs to look at the costs for the alternatives of wind, solar and other power generation. Wind has the problem that if wind was the sole basis for new power generation it would a warming effect as well.

In a related link Wang points out the oil and gas capital expenditures are currently at more that $1 trillion ( US $) per year.

Fuel Choices

Customs officers 
 Inport controls in action

At Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman and Andrea Jennetta report on fuel choices and small modular reactors.

LWR SMRs Have Fuel Advantages

Yurman and Jennetta assess fuel choices for SMRs in terms of assess time to market and export control issues. Thorium reactors face a challenge of proving their competitive advantage in terms of total cost of doing business.

Advertising Campaigns
In Yes Vermont Yankee, I describe a possible advertising communications campaign for Indian Point.

The Subways of New York and Indian Point

Indian Point could advertise on the New York subways, since they provide part of the power for the subways. I thought of some neat ads for them. This post had many hits, and attracted some of the "usual suspects" from the New York area in the comment stream.  Should I be glad I have a new set of readers? (just a joke)


Education and Communication
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology: Who should the audience be?
American Nuclear Society's CNST

At 4Factor Consulting Blog, Margaret Harding talks about the Center for Nuclear Science and Technology that ANS is creating to help with education. Two speeches given at the ANS-UWC put the idea in her head that the CNST should be doing more to education journalists and local governments. In the end, what are YOU doing to educate your community?

ANS Young Members
New chair for the Young Members Group at ANS

Introducing ANS Young Members Group Chair Gale Hauck

Gale Hauck

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, American Nuclear Society Young Members Group (YMG) Secretary Elia 

Merzari caught up with new YMG Chair Gale Hauck and asked her to 

introduce herself and upcoming plans for the ANS YMG.

Politics and Communication
Gail Marcus discusses Harry Reid and Bill Magwood
Harry Reid insulted NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood.  Allison Macfarlane would be re-appointed Commission Chair by Obama if he is re-elected.  How is this all going to play out?

More on Reid and Magwood

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus has a follow-up to her previous discussion on Harry Reid's comments on NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood a few weeks ago.  She reflects on a comment the earlier blog received, which speculated that, if President Obama is reelected, he will want to reappoint Chairman Allison Macfarlane, but it will prove impossible because there will be no Republican with which to pair her nomination.  Gail follows that train of thought and considers the various possibilities.

Nuclear History: SYLCOR Continued




Moving away from communications issues, we look at nuclear history with Will Davis of Atomic Power review.

SYLCOR Western Office:  Part 3

In the latest SYLCOR historical retrospective installment, we learn about SYLCOR's specialty in fuel elements in text and photos, and see a particularly unusual type of fuel element made by this company for a special situation.  Many interesting illustrations are included.


Technology of Uranium Extraction
For our final Carnival entry, we get away from communications into straight technology.  Brian Wang reports that the technology for extracting uranium from seawater has improved.  Costs for seawater extraction are getting closer to land-based costs.

Uranium from seawater idea boosted with shrimp shells

At Next Big Future, Brian Wang reports  that uranium from seawater technology has been improved. 'Although these trials proved the principle of uranium extraction from  seawater, the cost was prohibitively high - perhaps around $260 per  pound. This compares badly to today's most economic mines on land, which produce uranium at around $20 per pound, while resources at higher  costs up to about $115 per pound have already been identified that would last more than a century.' And: The ACS summarised the session saying that the new techniques might reduce the cost of uranium from seawater to around $135 per pound.

Enjoy the Carnival!

Read it! Follow the links!  Tweet it! Facebook it!  (Buttons at top right for your linking pleasure.)

Have fun and spread the fun!