Radiation facts may ease fears
Lee Benson
You may remember Mr. Howard. He is the retired health physicist I introduced to readers of this column five years ago when he took issue with something I'd written about the hazards of nuclear waste coming to Utah.
In a polite but firm way, Howard let me know that I was seriously undereducated about radiation. While neither promoting nor lobbying against the dumping of somebody else's nuclear waste in Utah, he said that as a scientist he was disappointed at reactions to perceived dangers of radiation that tend to be based largely on emotion rather than fact.
Too often, he said, hysteria grows because of anecdotal evidence and not supportable truth.
Howard's latest concern involves opposition to the proposed detonation of a chemical explosive at the Nevada Test Site called "Divine Strake."
He refers specifically to anti-nuclear activists who have been vocal at government hearings — and who are expected to be in full voice again tonight at a scheduled public hearing at the state Capitol.
"It bothers me to hear of people worried about trivial or nonexistent amounts of radiation," Howard said, "and what we're talking about in this case is a level of radiation so small it should realistically be called zero."
"According to quotes from the (government's) official draft assessment, the most radiation a person could receive standing next to the test site boundary during the explosion is estimated to be 0.006 to 0.007 millirem, while off-site populated areas would have an exposure two to five times lower still. That is 40 to 100 times lower than the 0.1 millirem level established by the EPA as allowable exposure (at the Nevada Test Site) under any conditions."
Layman's translation: "The result is zero exposure."
"Doesn't the public know that they are getting radiation of approximately 100 to 150 millirems per year just from background radiation in Utah — that's radioactive materials from the soil, in building materials and from cosmic rays?" said Howard. "That's 60 times the .006 cited for Divine Strake every day."
"Don't they realize that a cross-country trip in an airliner could get them about five extra millirems? Don't they know that a dental X-ray exposure is about 100 millirems?"
Further, the physicist said that any Nevada soil that might be transported to Utah as the result of Divine Strake would contain an increase in radioactivity also too small to measure — because any radioactive materials lingering from atmospheric nuclear blasts in the 1950s and 1960s have decayed to inconsequential levels.
"We should not be concerned about an explosion that would only throw ordinary dirt into the air," he said.
As always, the gentlemanly Mr. Howard stressed that his only agenda in the N-debate is to do all he can as a physicist to discourage fear of trivial amounts of radiation and let the public know that nuclear is a viable and safe energy option as opposed to an evil one.
"We need to know the truth," he said. "Then act accordingly."
I, for one, think he makes a convincing case. Again.
Lee Benson's column runs Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.
You can be the first to comment on this story.