ML20003E191

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Urges Restart of TMI-1
ML20003E191
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 03/10/1981
From: Grimm H
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8104020463
Download: ML20003E191 (1)


Text

I Stbject: Comments offered for the hearing at the 'ah. Penn Museum To: De Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Prepared March 10s 1981. <

It would be helpful to all of us if the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board would bring us up to date on statistics associated with generating electric power. No doubt you are familiar with the statistics used in the WASH-1400 report somJtimes called the Rasmussen reporte Are their statements about the number of deaths per year, associated with our daily lives horrect, after 5 years expo-sure to public perusal? Are the statements about risks associated viith generating electrical powe,r essentially correct?

Petr Beckmann, in ame Health hazards of Not Going Nucleara, gives the deaths in fatal mining accidents for coal and uranium. Per billion megawatt hours generated from coal 190 coal miners die; for uranium it is 18. Does the board believe this 10 to i ratio is creditable? If you do, how can you make any other decision than to turn mI 1 back on? Anti-nuclear people imply that one consumers life is worth more than 171 coal maners lives. That must be why they think coal shouls be used rather than radioactive fuels. I a=

aware that the output of TMI-lis somewhat less thr.a 1000 megawatts, but the 10 to i ratio holds for any smount of pot,er consumed.

If you have not read Aaron W11davsky's article. *Zero aisk Is The Highest aisk Of All". in the January-Pebruary 1979 American Scientist, may I suggest that you do. Among other things e he points out that putting too much effort on one risk associated with our lives often becomes severly counter-productive. When we get too intent on <

reducing one risk, another risk becomes dominent and kills us.

Attempting to reduce all risks to zero is not a physically I realizable objective. Too much effort on reducing one risk toward zero, such as radioactive nucleil, diverts our attention from risk reduction in other areas, such as toxic chemical disposal.

Please bring us tap to date on the present state of knowledge in situations mentioned here. My reading leads me to believe TMI-1

  1. ' d be back on as soon as it is at .the state-of-the-art for l eactors. I see no reason why that should be any more than -

_'5r 4,,

op of months. The exaggerated fears of consumers should not O

h[Mh = =1 ushg to justify and be exchanged for the unecessary deaths of C ars.

D

  • af(R 31MP C Henry peesuto" b j H. Grimm, retired physicist and electronics engineer.

( hh -

fp4Tr3cte: Another evidepce of W11davsky's contention is discussed in

~

an article by Henry Eurwitz'-mattlobr, aAre energy-efficient homes more radioactive Man nuclear meltdownsa. mis discusses the high radon level in homes with inadequate W

air exchanges.

d. 9. d J.

e====. scomne aimco 5

NeRY lt, 8 818818 f/o MA Pt7eles seseres Pweies 4 eestreme tasassertes:

Bee,seee, meerswevee, commesmesese Systeers: d toerw Caseerveces: cassenre, tweesuee, erfreer 32 VALLEY CRTVE. R. 3. 3 8104020 M " " * ' ' " ' 7*=~'

mPyms g e-

.. -- -- --.. - . ._ _ --__ --