SCSQUARED halfBy Roger Johnson, San Clemente

It is worrisome that Edison nuclear operator David Davison is wrong about so many facts.

I stated that the release dates for radioactive discharges into the atmosphere and ocean are secret. David disputes this and says they are not secret. He is wrong. The dates of release are never disclosed. The nuclear industry does not want the public to know these dates so the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accommodates them by requiring only that they submit quarterly summaries.

Statements that low-level radiation is safe, does not affect cell DNA, and is not cumulative are irresponsible. The NRC makes up its own arbitrary standards to suit the industry. Their solution to radiation hazards is not to reduce radiation, but rather to raise the levels of what they call “safe.” The NRC now plans to raise the allowable public radiation exposure to 100 mSv (the EPA safe standard is 0.25 mSv). The deadline for public comment is Nov. 19.

Let’s face it, the NRC is run by political appointees hand chosen by the nuclear industry which provides 90 percent of its funding. It is not a scientific body and its statements have little scientific credibility. This is obvious from its deliberately misleading statements about cancer and the fact that it is afraid to let the National Academy of Sciences perform a scientific study on cancer effects near nuclear power plants.

Let’s all band together and get this waste removed to a safer interim storage site. And as long as it says here, let’s insist on the safest possible means of storage. Without massive public support, neither of these goals will be realized.

 

About The Author Staff

comments (2)

  • “David disputes this and says they are not secret. He is wrong.”

    They are NOT secret as evidenced by the fact that you accessed the effluent report right off the NRC website; a report you obviously do not know how to read. You confused DILUTION water flow with the mildly radioactive effluent and arrived at an impossibly large figure AND you even got the dilution water flow rate wrong because the number YOU used was the average DILUTION water flow for the entire year, not the discharge you were pointing to. Furthermore, YOU neglected, or more probably didn’t understand, the conclusion found on page 65 of the report which stated that the largest dose to the most exposed member of the public was .965 mRem (that’s point 965 mRem, ie., less than ONE!). That dose was for the combined total of both gaseous and liquid releases for the entire year. To put that number in perspective, the NRC says the average individual receives 30 mRem per year just from the food they eat, ie., 30 times more radiation from just their food than the nuclear plant. Dose from a chest x-ray is about 700 mRem and a full body about 1000 mRem. See here from the NRC:

    On average, Americans receive a radiation dose of about 0.62 rem (620 millirem) each year. Half of this dose comes from natural background radiation. Most of this background exposure comes from radon in the air, with smaller amounts from cosmic rays and the Earth itself. (The chart to the right shows these radiation doses in perspective.) The other half (0.31 rem or 310 mrem) comes from man-made sources of radiation, including medical, commercial, and industrial sources. In general, a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm.

    Some residents in Ramsar Iran receive as much as 26,000 mRem/year and that is from naturally radioactive springs.

    So when YOU claim San Clemente residents should be terrified about less than 1 mRem/year from the nuclear plant, you are branding yourself a crack-pot. Indeed, releases to the environment are not publicly announced because they pose zero danger and just because I don’t tell my neighbor every time I fire up my BBQ, it doesn’t mean it is a secret particularly if my BBQ times are a matter of public record.

    See here for doses when taking inter-continental flights, think of the flight crews:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuQgVGDENbU

    Guarapari Beach Brazil and the radioactive sands people sun themselves on:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHHUGwFoJE

    Radioactive places around the globe:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0

    From the NRC website:
    NRC regulations strictly limit the amount of radiation that can be emitted by a nuclear facility, such as a nuclear power plant. A 1991 study by the National Cancer Institute, “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities,” concluded that there was no increased risk of death from cancer for people living in counties adjacent to U.S. nuclear facilities.

    Roger, you’re wrong about virtually everything you say about nuclear power. You won’t listen to facts, or the scientific and engineering studies; you claim the NRC is biased but don’t present any evidence to support this claim, you make outlandish statements like your truck bomb gaff and have thus far been impervious to common sense…I can’t help you.

  • You said: “The NRC now plans to raise the allowable public radiation exposure to 100 mSv (the EPA safe standard is 0.25 mSv).”

    Here is the current NRC limits for members of the public found on the below NRC website:

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1301.html

    From the above NRC website:

    “The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year…”

    YOU are in error yet again and perhaps it is because you fail to understand the units of radiation. As stated on the NRC website, the limit for the public is .1 Rem which = 100 mRem which = 1 mSv.
    Your 100 mSv = 10,000 mRem or 10 Rem which is twice the legal limit NOT for members of the public, but for radiation workers!

    What is your source for your statement that the EPA “safe standard” is .25 mSv? You probably don’t realize that that dose limit is more than 25 times greater than what the most exposed member of the public received from San Onofre in the year YOU chose, 2012; and yet, you still wish the public to be frightened.

    I understand you have a PhD in neuroscience. Perhaps you should stick to what you’ve been trained in because you don’t know diddly about nuclear power and you’re embarrassing yourself.

comments (2)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>