> Of course I'm serious. After all, you claim that the radiation risk from
me
> is greater than the radiation risk from nuclear power. If the radiation
> risk from nuclear power is so much less, then why are the safety measures
> so extremely more strict? Logic dictates that higher risk requires more
> safety measures, not less.
>
>
There are a few things to be said about this. First, logic often goes out
the window when people think of nuclear this or nuclear that. Look at how
people can ignore multiple fatalities in some industries and worry about the
implications of many fewer deaths in another. There have been two
industrial accidents. One had no deaths directly associated with it. The
other had 30 (I got that number from anti-nuke websites, so I think it
isn't low). With Chernobyl, the UN commissioned a very thorough medical
follow-up, and they have yet to find any increase in the death rate for
people who were effected by this accident.
And, this accident had three terrible things going on that made it as bad as
it was:
1) The design was old, long retired from the West at least partially for
safety reasons
2) There was no containment building
3) The workers were playing games with the reactor.
And even with these three causes, none of which would happen in the West
(the first 2 couldn't, the third is virtually inconceivable...someone
allowed to play with a billion dollar piece of equipment like that), the
deaths were limited to 30. 30 is indeed 30 too many, but it is not worse
than 30 people dying on the roads on a weekend or its not as bad as 300
people dying in a plane crash.
But, these two accidents are listed as proof that nuclear power is
overwhelmingly dangerous. I don't see the logic in that.
Having said that, let's look at the other part of what you said. Since
there are elaborate safety measures for nuclear power, it must be more
dangerous. Well, lets consider flying across the US vs. driving across the
US. Flying is definitely safer. There are more deaths by car than by
plane. After millions of miles in each category, there is more than enough
data to make that conclusion.
Flying has many more elaborate safety measures than driving. Due to cost of
scale, etc. it is possible to have those safety measures. If the same
safety measures were used for flying as were used for driving, there would
be a lot more plane crashes than car crashes. But, that doesn't mean that
flying is riskier than driving.
A second example. They electricity in your house represents a greater risk
than the high voltage lines running high in the air. High voltage can kill
you quicker than low voltage, but it is possible to take safety precautions
with the high voltage lines that cannot be taken with low voltage lines.
So, more people die from electrocution from low voltage than high voltage.
Chemical poisoning is the same. Industries can use vast quantities of
various poisonous substances. If this stuff were simply stored in open
bottles around the house, it could have devastating consequences. But, with
the value of the production of these plants, the companies can afford to
take significant safety measures that the average homeowner cannot. Thus,
stuff under the sink is the cause of most poisoning deaths.
Now, back to nuclear power. The basic rule for nuclear safety is ALARA: As
Low As Reasonably Achievable. This means that all reasonable effort needs
to be taken to minimize radiation exposure, even if the exposure is well
within legal limits. We worked at our company to have exposure limits that
were a fraction of the legal limits.
Lets look at this with nuclear power. There are megaCuries of radioactive
material in a reactor. This is not something you want under the kitchen
sink. But, workers have to be able to work in a nuclear plant. So what is
done to follow ALARA.
There are three ways to minimize exposure. They are referred to as TDS:
Time Distance Shielding.
The exposure to a given source is proportional to the time spent near it.
So, by reducing the time it takes to do a job in a radiation area from 10
minutes to 5, one decreases the exposure by a factor of two.
The exposure is also inversely proportional to the distance from the source.
So, a 1 curie source 1 meter away is more dangerous to you than a 1
megacurie source 1.5 km away from you.
The exposure can be minimized by shielding. A sheet of paper can stop an
alpha particle, a piece of aluminum foil, most beta. Gammas and neutrons
require more shielding. The gammas from your Sonja are 1.46 Mev, and you
should really have about 5-6 inches of steel to be sure you've stopped them.
(If you really want I can run a MCNP model on this. :-) )
Well, at home, that's virtually impossible. ALARA is As Low As Reasonably
Achievable. It would be unreasonable to expect you to keep your distance or
only see her for 5 minutes a day, or to keep encased in steel. It would
interfere with normal functionality. :-)
With a nuclear plant, this is much easier to accomplish. Through the
effective use of shielding, the radiation levels in the control room, etc.
are low. Indeed, lower then in bed with a spouse according to what I've
been told. I wouldn't doubt that, because once you are within a factor of
10 or so, it should just take another layer of cinder blocks to get below a
given level. (This is an off the cuff calculation, but I've had to design
radiation areas where the outer walls had to be public areas before.) I'm
sure they don't use cinder blocks, but you get the idea.
Dan M.
