----- Original Message -----
From: Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:09 AM
Subject: RE: W. on the Environment
> > If you have studies that contradict these, Charlie, I'd be happy
> > to look at them and try to compare methodology. I tried to find the
most authoritive
> > studies I could on the net.
> >
> >
> > Dan M.
>
> Nothing I can reproduce here, unfortunately, it's all word-of-mouth from a
> russian friend who knows people working from the russian side of it. :o(
>
I kinda guessed that. Indeed, this report cites such Russian reports and
then states that they have not panned out. I'm guessing its comparable to
the data that suggests that power lines cause cancer: not a good study with
a control. Further, I'm guessing that scientific methodology may be another
casualty of the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
>
> Cumulative exposure is now the concern, along with radioactive particles
> traveling up the food chain.
>From what I understand, the dose rate is now back to less than background
for all the exposed people. This includes the rate from ingested radiation.
I've seen an anti-nuke site that agreed that the radiation level in food is
now back to where its hard to measure the difference.
> I'm not doom-mongering, and I'm certainly not going to make wild claims.
>
I appreciate that, and I'm not trying to make it sound as though you are.
I'm simply comparing sources of information, and most likely understandings.
> However, I think we were lucky. It could have been a lot lot worse.
>
It could have been much worse, indeed. But, I think a bit more precise
formulation of that is that we were not unlucky. From what I've read 30% of
the Cs in the core was blown out by the explosion, and 50% of another
element. So, conservatively assuming a 25% blow out. That's not all, but
it is a large fraction. So we do have a good example of a major
contamination event.
The explosion could have been stronger, spreading the radiation over a
broader area. But this explosion magnitude is in the fat part of the
probability curve, from what I remember. As the strength of the explosion
rises, the probability falls drastically. Its like a hurricane in some way,
the conditions have to be just right (wrong) for a really big explosion.
So, while this is not as bad as it can be, it is the most likely scenario
for a major reactor explosion without a containment building. The
probability of a larger explosion goes down quickly as the magnitude of the
explosion increases. The worst case scenario for nuclear power involves
everything being perfect for the largest explosion possible combined with
the optimum wind and weather for the spread of the contamination. And, in
the West, a catastrophic failure of the containment building.
Dan M.
