ML23151A574

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
PRM-050-031 - 47FR12639 - Citizens Task Force
ML23151A574
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/24/1982
From:
NRC/SECY
To:
References
PRM-050-031, 47FR12639
Download: ML23151A574 (1)
v • d • e


Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 03/24/1982 PRM-050-031 - 47FR12639 - CITIZEN'S TASK FORCE PRM-050-031 47FR12639 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

D RU E p -):PA TNUMBER L"A AA!/

l'RGD. & UTIL FAC...... :=-'u-~~ (444,-~L (FEB 2 3 1 87) oo: Kr*:

I tH DOCKET NUMBER TITION RULE PRM ~,3/~

L4// F~ /.,2.~_d</,.

l!V "87 FEB 27 p 4 :31 f-VICf

}) l X.

t=o--~ \A, 1)\ )(..

s \ ~ ) \

I'.

rtOl:71-'110\

r

. ::2.:).. 1,q_s'\

l-e~"'

l.,l: t

+l-t 1L.. (

vu.A.'S.'6>\<M vt{1""(CCS.

L l

\'f";.>

l,(.,,1,-,

'IU\e,V\A~ v~D"f \o~ <.1td, 1llh-\*

'Vt

)

c.t"J\.-V..,1,1. h'<rv'>

O\A,e..,\,

,-v i.v'-c I()..\,~~

~ 7e,~Y"\e Tn b,cc~, "\e.t' se...

\\\\A \

If x.-uu hM a~o1 ~

ct11,L, l

'V\, c;:t

(\.'\ <:

'b\

o U. -\ \A..c-~ of

\JS l))1/4o

\ *~

~ -\k n - 1 \.\ti

\Aco ~ ~ YR*c..0.

  • v\ \

.\-S.

  • I

~'\l c.> *

/\AA 1~0v,

~o r ~

<'1-.~

\ le.

V\I\., \ V\ i. W\ V ~ ~ 2.-

'y\,\ I \.es. I \\\\A....S <:,

\.) \A

e.

- x. °"""c\ a.b

, \,v-\-- v-..rk, c ~ ce ~ \ \') ('I Se A s~..e c

  • h c..

~\.\: s.

\t ~. (kin,t> ':\\\\

c\Cvoh~ w-e,lu.A(.A

\ q Yn ~ \

c, ___,

. v e-l\ we.-

\,i\~ t-

~;e,;;-Q'f 'J -e v~

\rs~.

{)\.e,~se. \

~ KV\.O 6l (A<;l~ O'\rl ilt~

U.S. NU(:LEAR R:-GULA TORY COMMISSION DOGKET~G & SE?..\'I:": SECTION Postma~k i".1 t!ll Copip Add' I c 'i's*

i:,

Special D1stri!:..,;.

'RY l',~tCrt-!

z(;~

I -

  • 3

/t])~ ?Pi

UMBER i..

JN RULE ?RM.fd-~

(.:S.' Fe ~~~7 () IJfj)

~., \._ ~\---------

BERKELEY* DAVIS

  • fflVINE
  • LOS ANGELES
  • RIVERSIDE
  • SAN DIEGO
  • SAN FRANCISCO j /

SANTA BARBARA* SANTA CRUZ

\~<-., 6.* :~Y*a1 FEB 24 P 3 :43 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY Secretary U.S. NRC Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Secretary:

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720 February 19, 19lrit I am writing to decl are my support for PRM-50-31 and opposing PRM-50-45.

I would prefer we didn't have any nuclear plants or nuclear arms at all. I think that they are an insanity.

God knows what kind of disaster is impending.

But as long as they are here, let us at least protect human life as much as possible.

Even though you can't see radiation, it can do a lot of damage.

Surely the Commission is not so foolish as to ignore this evidence. Please increase the evacuation zone around nuclear plants to at least 20 miles.

Patricia Parker

OOCKET NUMBER

~ETITION RUL£ PRM :i:J-.3@

(-17 P',l /,ttJf.

~~( K[i

,NI!

DOCKET NUMBER fETITION RULE PRM ~~~

cs1 ~.Js-nl) w "87 JAN -8 P 4 :57

'1).e_o._,\_ ~

I So.~ GtlW\.wc..l\ l cA q41 o<z JOIV\IA~ 6"1 l9g1 I

c. m uA~ U ~cu. /Ll~uA~~ tum tJ Q. <:. ~

~ ~ ~~, -P~"' -s-o - j t ~

v<<.vY\ -Sb -4's-.

s pi.Of~ I c. = 0-(~o-ud. t,, ?il.1n - 6o - 4S-r,,,-.J,. ~

c~ p11~rcr.>~ ~di\ ~

J\.WA.t1. th. ry, ~wo..ilm

~a'f\L\ o.. Mtwl,,M.d.. tDJt At.o..dtns. <ii- ~ ~~ ~ crw.. Ill'<~

l O\. ~LO/'t\c.l) ~

)UQ~ ~m.S l CJIY'(\.'('(\[N\. ~

urovJ.l.

dide.k ~4 V-uV'wo U'\'\Slf\~turt-Cf t~C;h.. ro.Ai.~

~

L.,~o.n :,-1+a 0/'Nk u10JU. Cl/'-l lM.~.

I~ ~

wtfu._ 1/4\l~ ~W\~ ram-9>-jl VJ Cc.~ o.~-

t\-~ ~C)~(P~ ~'-v\\\\_ sh.~ u,..: ~~Fa\~ WM. a.c..U.i,t(..C{.

'Th_Ov\\\\.\l. i <SIA. ~m ~oul\ UJ'(\Slcili\ ~

l l Du.ls Th-~,

'"flu_~~.

~'e..

~,(!\'~\

DOCKET NUM&a

~

PETITION RULE; PRM &..-.J /

~

Sidney J._ Goodman_, P. E. (:4 7 Fif_ J,Z".J~ )

170 Villanova Drive I 4 1/

Paramus, N.J. 07652 (201) 444-0283 December 1, 1986 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Secretary:

uOl KETL,

!.,')NRC 086 OEC -4 Pl2 :20 OFFICt.

~ "-

t At<

00 KETtNG &. SEIW ICF l"A NCH I wish to corrmcnt on the published petition to exparrl the minirrum EPZ to 20 miles (Ref. PRM-50-31)

  • The intent of this petition is in the right direction.

However, it is absurd that the mininun EPZ be a mere 20 miles, when enpirical data exists that the accident at Chernobyl spewed deadly radioactive contamination for rrore than a thousaoo miles.

I have enclosed a copy of data fran the Carmni.ttee for Nuclear Responsibility which enumerates the rn.rnber of deaths which will actually occur in far-flung locales.

The persistent coverup of this horrendous death toll by the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnision has been an outrageous insult to the principles of science aoo ethics.

A rrore realistic evacuation zone is required, regardless of how inconvenient that might be to those technological prostitutes who have assiduously sacrificed the p.tblic health and safety on the altar of their own rrorally depraved selfishness.

Sincerely,

~,~1,(J,t--

Sidney J. Goodman, P.E., M.S.M.E.

OEC - 9 1986 knowledged by card...************ ~

1'HM

, r C

J. U. S. NUCLEAR REGU DOCKET NG & ~

ICE L OFFICE CJt-T OFTH

(.,

.. vll~vi Dol..U

e. l' st... tis,,.s Postmark Date

) Z

/

- -~~- - - - - -

C 9 p I es Received

/

Add'I Co::,ies Re, o u.d

_ _2_

'bution _

7/2~-f;?s_

r 1.. ---_...

~--:.-::-:: -~ -

~. :t-J:--~

!t....

~

i Q:;

j CS'

~

)

I a:

sq::

---. d 1

. ~-..... -:**:,:~_; k*.,_:.;** -:

JI

.* **, we llstened to' warnings from every :* :*--::*;.

00p** hant, e *1911_* e*

_._, ~

environmentalist dingbat, we'd never get anything _buHf' '. * *. ~ '* : *. **,..

. £ r$;~_~;* ~--*-------------------------------------------,.------....1

"'..,,~..... -,',

.1. miHiOrl chemobyl viCti~s Predicted

- *ANAIIEIII, Cllllf. <Badan)-Ahaat cacs'OPa' a,._,,..period* a nailt data. *

  • 1 mDllon people tlacqbo,a Cbl....., ti. belnC ezpaed te ndloadhe cslum Be aid twtimatm preaeated at a

-,

  • lcoald deftlopcaDCff otue toezpmure lo from 1be mdear power.pant~ meetinl of tbe lntemaUoDal Atomic

.. ndloedhe laBaat from tbe <Jlemabyl IMtAprllJS.

Eneru ~

late lat month in-amclmr' acddmt ud balf that.lllllllher lie aid another l9,lilO womd ~

cJaded only eaDCel' c:Mel wlfhill Che

waald die from It, a ldmtilt &a<<icted ceslum-camed leukfflll* ud an Soriet Union and were hued on lilt

'. 'l'aally.

idWIOWD namber wvald deTelop fadon lbat wa"efarloo low.

Dr. Jolin Golmm, a profe.or 1byrald ud oCber amcen fram add1-Golmn 1111d tbe findlDp "Bald emeri* of medical phylica at the _ tioml racloactl,e aiefa,..:ea In tbe DDthiDg bout the fact that outside tbe

    • Untnnlty
  • Callfomla at Berbley, fallollt. -.

8oriet Union Chere would be at Jeat a E.

prmou., Mlha'1el

  • tbe falloat'1 * ~

ftcarea were mare 1hn m;e

  • number of cancers a imdde tbe were hued on,ai.., wwaploa be *tim,ea greets-tlrm tbe ldpeat, SovietUnion."

radlatiaoandcancerrilb.

-'- e.ll ta n.i.. ~ Gafmn, who coocecled tbt la

"'ID thA =.fim hlllde ud oataide ~;;,.;::;~

~

estimtenould boo cfilcou,ved "1 m111

_... 1be Soriet the total aanib. ol Westeni lldeatim ~ ~

- !dmtiBts as hlply ea:aaa:ded, aid maHpodel wrlll be aomewhat Oftlr a

.n,rwbere from 2,0CIO to Tl 000 be did DOt qumtloo tbe amount ol mllBaa, ol which Id

  • them will be -- -

radlatlm:! dosages reported by Soriet fat,Hffs " Gofman aid at * -

premature deatt rmiting from tbe offldu at tbe forum bat lbuply cadereoi:e before delfft:i;he nllitl of accldmt, wbldl IO far ba li:fBed U dlligreed with the amount a cancer Im ltady to tile rmI meeting m tbe =~~nacutian*.115,000 ~eMlio*bodbytbeIAEA.

American Claemical Sodety la,..

BE MID 'l1IE U.N. a,mcy, whale Ambeim.

  • :.. " ()OFIIAN MID fflE 'enects of final report aid tbere woald be 2,{IOI BE E8TIIIATED THAT 01,110 ~

apc1D'9 to~ radiation Mcl6oNI deal! aJD0111 71-miDIIIII

=In-==~-== =~*II:..-::,.-.::;.*;_*_,_... _.

  • . : ---~~""..'>7'~_'.:-_~*t-..,.t-*:..._

-~ ;*:*-

xn,;~

't.,.;

peaiile.la lbe 8orillt UnlaD,.... -

aiamlc lndamy O'IIIIP that coald be apecC!ld to mfnlmbe die rtllb m ndltkllla:pmare.

'"ftle ux _report la man, 1ban 15 timlll loo low, hued OD rilk. per aait cloN (of ndiatloa) Jae Aid.

~.,.... at Vienna wa 11111111 ln-c:orrectftguns Oil dme to risk."

Galman worted during Wodd War n OD tbe Jlulhttan Project,.tilch de-

~

the atomic bomb, and bu wrtttea 101D8 1511 ldemlftc papen and two boob with Im empbaia Oil the fl.-

!cct ol ~

radl5til:D -- blanan-lalth..

Gofman aid lbere II m ale lbnllhald for radlatim. '-nioap It II

_accmate that the amaDer the tadiatioa dale the mnaDer tbe canca-mt, lbere II DO dole IIO IIDD lhlt 1be body am perfedly repa1r an resulting c1amqe 1o DNA and tbee&+MIH....,.," ~aid.

Wed., September 10, 1988 n....,

~,j**

  • ,~-~\-*'

--,~

    • "Could~ *-is4ieuten'.:crror:\Dr
  • Gofman said "will" The Associ-disparate ~~tes, (4) C1iemobyl: sources of fallout data,

~-ated Press and.Uriitcd ~- futcmational wire ~

also car-(5) methods: illustrative use of the data, (6). resulting Chernobyl ried" the story. The. cowi~untry distn'bution ~f the malig-assessment, discussion, conclusions, (7) two techtiiau appendices, nancies is tabulated inside. * *:.;-? -*. *.-:

and references.

~ -*:. * -., * : *..,,. --,.,,: :.:.,l <~ ~Dr.'QC!fiQan'* s1-page paper is

  • available from 'the eo~:at.a cost of $4.00 including ship-ping.*. -

~---.-~~~7-;,_,..,-r.:/~*~*_./6'~~~ ~----,

  • * *- Sections in Dr. Oofman's *A.C.-S. paper include (1) laws of human carcin~ by ionizing *radiation, (2) inspection
  • of a

, "threshold dose" for carcinogenesis,. "(3). reconciliation* of

.. -,,.. :\,. -~:~~~:J1i;:~!\~)),>:~./. *.. - -.

Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc..

A non-profit ech1caUoµal lll'gutzaOon, llnce 1'71 POD 11207 _*-,...

San Francisco, CA 94101, USA

  • Gifts are tax-deductible *

--1~-,.---------------

' ;:f Chernobyl (Part 1):":~:f/;~;~_: :_ /:,-*

_ Chernobyl (Part 2) :

-A Realisti~*~s~r~-~~-Conseqnences./,... _. When Radiation Experts _Disagree-..,_-:

\..--: "-~*... \:..",.t.'"".,,~~!.-..;:-:.~_

4*~u..~~*~:~*-,-*,~~,~;,.

Ms.Eiano'Ceoa-or.

~~

  • ~ *
  • _.
  • _ * ~ ~ ~

P.~ ~

-plant _~d~t ~

April 19_86 will

. * - In iate *Auaust, l 9B6, th~ Soviet gov~ent ~ted its first cause a_ m~~

m ~

aoo.. m -~ ~

regions of -, ~TCpOrt about the Chern~! 3:cciden~ to the International Atomic Energy the Soviet U

  • aa:o~ io an ~~t

~~John:~---.**. Agency (IAFA), an orpruzatJ.on-of governments sponsoring or planning Go~ M.D.,_.PJi.D: D(. Oo~ wh~ 11 "Professor En)critus of Medi-to sponsor nuclear power. The Sovii;t's estiµ}ate of_ cesium-137 fallout

-~ Ph)'llCI at~ UmvemJY of~

{Bcrkcley) and ~r of Radi- -~

within the european parts of_ the ~viet Union is in perfect atioll and Hwnan '~-(lP.plJl) 1981, ~tcd Im ~tt_y-by-

- BC;COrd whb.Dr. John W. G9fman'1 earlier CS:fimate~Since Dr. Gofman's coun~ ~

~

9.1")986 at the national~'of the: indcpcndcp.t)methods, ~

data from ilie)World Health-' Organization American ---~Soci~.*;-_-,-*. -

~-

JWHO):And:the U.S.,,.Environmcntal Ptotcction,~cy (EPA); yielded

  • *-*~tat:ianjt the AC.S. :explain~~ scieniliic errors

~e right answers.a~ fallout and dole within the-Soviet Union, there is

_which invifidatc*thc !6'Qql lower,cabccr-estimatcs publicized by others,

-~-reason.for coDficfence that l:µs methods are also yielding.realistic and in additiQn,-:'Offcred the first positive J)J'OOf that there is no safe threB-

~

for the Ew:oPean ~om wfilch sup_plled ~ta of !l similar nature hold dose of ~-radjation with respect to human cancu-induction. -

to WHO antl EPJ\, -'-

This ~f ~

... ~idea (called -~on hormem~) that 'Jaw

    • - With regard to*thc ll(tlppnt of fallout from Chernobyl and the

,, dOICS of 1001ZIDi I'IMli4fioii could ~ good_for human health.,

resulting human doses, there is prcicntly not signife:ant disagreement

  • -. The aacssment of a million malignancies from Chernobyl

-among experts. Then why are their estimates ol the ft9Ultfn& malfpa*des includes only those cues which will result from the fallout of cesium-134

., slgnfflantly dlfferellt7 J

(radioactive~~-~ 2.3 ycQl"I}~ ~um-137 <Haµ'-lifc

  • 30.2 rears).
  • - The reason is simple: go~ts and o~cr promoters of

_ These two radim\~cli~ az:e ~~,

t11f ~~t ~th~~-, nuclear pm,,:er and the ~

!.Ji:o arc ~

dependent on them from the~~~--,,'_? :; "'2:--

---~ *. * :~--

y

-_:-;. ** :* _: : ~

~-unch ~

~-to Clllll'e1t dose to mallpandes than do

  • - The staping'_bcalth ~

Of the ~t arc per-_ -.--;ind~t radiation ex~ like fys. Gofman and Radford. Dr.

  • fcctly consistf!tt with -a _veiy *{ow risk* for aduh -µ,wists spending, _ few. -.Edward Rai:lford, who was the. O111irman of ~

il.J:S:)"National Academy wecka or a~ in~ There ii.DO contradiction because the million "bf f>cicnces' *Committee on.the Bioloaical.Effect$ of Ionizing Radiat10n malignancies will rcsutt~from the 'c:ontimiin&~c:q,osure of whole popu1a-r (BElR), wrote a vigorous dissent to its repoq (BEIR-1980). Dr. Radford ons (including ~)

by" the ~fcit.nuittv ~

-: * * - _ -, ;-. _ thi.n'p -8£1;.R-~,i:lues-p:nclerlt{lte cancer consequences frooi radiation' expo-

  • - Even thoogh th6 cesium-ffl'la2its-.way below,~ ~

of the. ~:

~fold;: -l)r. 9ofman thinks that -DEIR-values understate conse-its decay produces pmma rays, most of which arc powerful enough QUCllCCI by 22-fold, and ~t ~

1!nitecl Nations Scientific CcJmmittee

  • to penetrate the soil and to continue irradiating people. Cesium atoms On the Effects, of ~~Dllc ~bon ({P.'lsq::AR) ~cs consc-

. which biDd. to the outside-of buildinp also COlltinue irradiatin people. -.'l~ by 37-fuld.

L About ~

of the-ultimate dose from cesium-137 comes fromB the con-**

~ * * *-- The diffetent factors for converting fallout d09C!i to malignan-tinning ~_iqadiation Yihichjt CQJCS; the other.30'&.comcs inter- -_~are inven:e}y rc4ltcd to tJ)c djfl"C{Cl)t canccr-oo,cs uscd by these four nally via its inption. The body treata ingested cesium like potassium.

IIOUl'CCI. The cancer-dose is simply the amount of radiation exposure in 1

Fortunately, the transfer of rdio-ccliums via roots into plants becomes

!'8(is which will cause one fatal cancer in an irradiated population of inblbittd ~-: time, ~

.* CCIIDDJ\.~ rclatfycfy' ~n _with other mixed~_ (l~ ~

  • I. Gray.) It oocs not ~tter that-¥erent indivi-molccu1cs }JI. tnosuoilr -. :-- ::'----.; *, _,

~ _..

du$ JCCCIVC different ~

because the amoupt_ _of exposure 'is meas-

  • ~ In Dr. Ooftnan'; ~taiion ;to thi A.C.S. ~ shows -that med _'in person-:rads. ExilntpM: 2,000 people -each receiving 3 rads of approximately half of ali the dose ( cxtemal and internal' combined) ever exposure _yield a dO!C of 6,000 person-rads; 4,000 people each ~

to be rcccivcd from Qcmobyl's cesium fallout will have been rcccivcd 0.5 rad ytcld 2,000 person-rads; the total exposure for such a population during the first IO years after the accident. Approximately two-thinls of would be 8,000 person-rads. Rmwnber: A high cancer-dose suggests a the ultimate dose commitment will have been rcccivcd by about the 25th low risk from radiation. The high cancer-dose of 10,000 person-rads per year:_

fatal cancer (compared with the realistic cancer-dose of 268 person-rads)

~ _ Because IClllitivity to radiation-induced cancer is highest at says that 10,000 / 268 or 37.3 times mort exposure is requirecl_to induce the younaest ages of exposure, the impact of the Chcmobyl accident will one fatal can~ than the cancer-dose ?f 268 penon-rads says.

be areatest upon the young _ even upon children not yet conceived.

  • - With ~

to CllernobY! s cancer ~

the vanous When a ~tion of normally mixed ages is irradiat~ about 731i of

  • cancer-doses for a DUXcd-agc populauon need companson: -
  • :the radiation-induced canccn develop in people who were age 20 years GOFMAN 1981: 268 person-rads per ~ta! cancer.
  • --younger at the time of exposure ( Rd:HH, p.309).

RADFORD 1985: 1,000 person-rads per fatal cancer.

W', * - Not only do the young experience a greater lifetime rate of BEill l980: 5,800 person-rads per fatal cancer.

1'1¥liation-induced cancer, but their cuea cost-them a -far ifCll1er loss of

~

~977: 1 O,QOO person-rads per fa~_ cancer. (No _changes lifespan. For instance, when newborn males are irradiated, amoog those

  • ~

m its 1982 ~

I~~ reports.)

-, wbo do develop fatal radiation-induced cancer, half will die Hfore reach-

  • - By sunplc J>!Oportlon, It ts clear that the ~e exposure from ing age 54.5 ycan; by contrast, if irradiation occun at age 45, among 011:fD~by! fallout ~ch- ~

Dr. Gofman to ~te 1,000,000

  • those who do develop fatal radiation-induced cancer1 lµl1f will die Wore

~uon-~duccd IJ?ahgnane1es (half of them fa~ m _Europe and ~

reaching age 75.2 years.

~

Umon combined, would lead to the following estimates of mahg-

.. *-._ Mcasurcmcntl of &n01i't from CllCmobyl destroy the notion n&nC1CS hued on the other IIOW'CCI:

that only people living close to a nuclear power plant are at mortal risk.

RADFORD: (268 / 1,000) x (1,000,000)

Dr. Gofman's _ aar*mv;nt lhows that more malil'lancics from the

- 268,00ft maUpsPdes..

  • acci<lent will occur owide the Sov_ict Union than inside. His analysis also BEill: (268 / 5,800) x (1,000,000) shows that the malignancies from OM accident at a nuclear reactor arc

"' -46,287 mallpandes.

rivalina the number cauJCd by.n the above-ground nndcar bomtHclts of*'

UNSCEAR: (268 / 10,000) x (1,000,000) the UK, USA, J]ld USSR combined... * -*,. --".-_, *, _.-

  • - "" 26,800 maHpandn

,*,--:.s*-*.,

.~,

  • - Cltcrnobyl assessments baled on BEIR and UNSCEAR arc

,. See note ~ftrst paae. ;;-:*~-.:, *.., -~-

simP}Y ~c. This ~ti~ is not a mattcr_of "opinion", "prefer-

  • - NO NUKt::S cncc, or anti-nudcar bias. It ts a matter of IClCilCC. The BEIR and

~

UNSCEAR cancer-doses arc worthless because they arc demonstrably

. - NO NUKES

'r -

incompatible with existing human mdence.

  • . :_-llli

~:iv-1/4,

  • - If BEIR and UNSCEAR values arc wrong, how does anyone I~
  • _, *:<.. ~ "~*

,dare_ to lllC them? Why (Ill tMy described QS "widely accepted"? The

  • . ti:

- -, l *

  • Ii//,,
f.

tfl -

  • r.

I H.

'C\.

,.. In"-- Dr, Radfi:,__. '--- _,;_ **....,* l()(},()(}O -nl:-*....;- fro'm,.,.. __

1/oJ'*,,....

/,._.

~*

-*,. *
  • i~' *,..... /,;.*. -; //~,

UIU Wilt.,.......,.u,u

~,.,..,..

\,.,UQ*

-.. :_:'.-' ;'...,_,.,.. ~,.. _,

_:::M~'-::~~}.:*.~~::.-:-' ***.,.-;*.*.:::~,:.'... - ~!!a~.:1~=~:n~~ of July 7,

-., -.,.,, \

--~- -,._...,.---~

.. -~_.-..... "'"-="'..--v--.... *-----;a.- -.r-:~,,,,,

.Malignancies From ¢,e-_Chernob-yfAccident and From Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons-Testing

-Thia tabla is adapted with.p~,rmiaaion_fr~ J.W. Gof~/* pre-publication*p~print, Malignancies are ball8d upon ~he ultimate do~-commitments (external and internal) over time from cellium-137 and 134.

For every T~d:l.ation-induced cancer, there,nil be appr-oximately one non-fatal radiation-induced cancer.

Kalignancie.,s _f~om Chernobyl -!rl:--b~nd _on __ doa~data 11upplied by 30 aovernments, and correspond ~th caaium-137 deposition of 992,000 curies yithin the european regiima of the USSR and 994,000 curies within thl:i other 29 cpun~r:!1t11. * ~e-~ts :say~*~_e.react,or'a total ~~~137 inventory va11 8,000,000 curie11.

Malii!lan~s -~f0J!l'-alt at~~B._c,t;a1iting~{ nuclear ~apona above gTound by the' UK, "USA~ and USSR, _combined, -are.

  • based Oh,tJie-17-:N. '11 figures for, avarage.cesium-137 i!aposition (136,000 pCi/sq meter) and the corresponding dose-commitDl&nt'. (~9-~llirada) 'iii,:~ha:noj~hern ~~phere*~ ~empa-rate latitudeK. Thia _tabla excludu othar locations.
  • Entries Ue deliberately not t,b,mcf~,:l'>off_J,efore !:he final combination,-
  • 1*

... --,---:_-_;.... -~-~--~; ~.... /

.... ;r,._... -;__:*:.-.... -T"";'\* -~-

~ *. ***r

-- ~ -_ \_7

  • . ____,.,, ;s <i3: \~:*. _/tHEiNOBYL'ACc!Dm.,.. - ;,_

A'IMOS. WEAf()NS-TESTING

~

"-App,:ox, ;., i:: :-,.-,~0

  • : Fatal.,. - ll!6n-Fatal Leuke-Dosa-Fatal -=

iod-Fatal *,

Leoke-Countq -_

Populatiim ". * :'Commit,

    • eancenC 'lad' 1 ea.

~ !!!!!!,_

Commit, Cancan. A4d' 1 Ca.

~

t:'"*""

.... 'i,,.,..'

Afghanistan-__ 19,300,000' -

- -Bo.~ta*:-**.

_::,._ * - *:~

  • 89 ~ads--.-.6,409.;-
  • 6.-4Q?.
  • 264 Albania

,-2,500,000,. i2 mriilil

.,W'*.**,:"'*~*-U2

-~c~.-. 5,,: --89 mrad;II_

,'.-837_.

-837 23430_

Algeria 16,800,000.

  • Ho.,.dau*';., *~- ;,;-::;~[~ ~*-:-*:..;

, 89 mrada

_ 5,579

  • .*5,579
  • Austria 7,600,000 174 rirada
  • .*. 4,934 4,_934

~-:* 293.. *; 89 mrad11_

2,54~

2,544

  • 104 Bangladesh 73,700,000 fio data 89 mrada 24,475 24,475 1,009.

Belgium 10,000,000 2 mrada 75 75 3

89 mrada 3,347 3,347 137 Bulgaria

  • ~,600,000 172 111rade 5,519... -

5,519 228 89 mrada*

  • 2;878** *,.,
  • 2,8'78 *
    • HB*
  • Canada 22,125,000 0.4

. 33 33

-1 89 mrada 7,405 1.405 _, _

303.

-China 820,000,000

.No da.ti-89 mrada 273,243 273,243 -

  • ll,266
  • Cuba 9-,500,000 I<

No data. -*,:.. _ -

89 mrada 3,155.

  • ~::

3,_155* ~ **

  • 138 Czechosl.ov.

15,500,000 52 made 3,0Q7 3,007 124 89 mrads 5,188 5,188 _ _

212 Denmark_

. 5,100~000 15.mrads'

  • _-2,a5' 285 12 "89 mrad11--*i,101

-1;101'* *., -,o*,

A Egypt

.)J.~00~000 No data

89 mnda 12,453 12,453 513 Finlsn,t
  • _

4,800 1000 249 mrad*-

_4,460 :-

__ 4~460

    • 184 69 111rada

-1,607.,.. rl,607

  • . 66 France" 54,540,000 58 *mrada 11,803_

11,803 487-89 mrada 18,255 -, :r- -18~5.-*

  • ,. 747
  • .... Germany;!..
  • 11,100,000*

2or:mr.sii.,, 12,825 12,825

. _* ~9 89 111rade,

.S,723, _.

5,723,.,** _.:234

  • Germany,W; "* '61,400,000

-172 mrada - '39,406 39,406 1,625 89 mrada 20,551 20,551 841 Greece

'9,*700,000.

~3arada'

. 109

'-109

~ *4 89mrada*

  • 3,247--

-3,-247 -~-

133

    • *Hungary *.
  • 10,600,000 41 mradll

. "1;622 1,622, ~-;. _ 67 89 mrade_,,

3,548..

3,548 * *, - 145 India - *.

  • 610;000,000 _
  • No data*

,89 mrada 203,h37 203,632

-* 8.,396 Irsn 32,900,000' Mo data 89 mrad*

10,926..

10,926

- 450 Iraq 11,100,000 Bo data.

-89 mrada 3,686 3,68~

152

_ Ireland 3,100,000 1.3 - *

.l*

89 mrada 1,038 1,038 42 15 15 lllrael 3,400,000

'No data

89. mrada 1,129 *

. 1,129 47 Italy 56,200,000

-29 mrada 251 89 mrada

  • 18,810 18,810 770 6,081 6,08,1 Japan 12D,OOO,OOO 0.8 15 89 mrada 39,997 39,997 1,636 357 357 Iorea,N.

15,900,000 Bo data 89 mrada 5,280 5,280 218 ltorea,S.

33,900,000 0.6 3

89 arada J.1,346 11,346 464

,76 76 Luxembour&

350,000 12 mrada 1

89 arad11 117 117 5

, Mexico (1/4) 30,000,000 lo data 89 mrada 9,963 9,963 411 16 16 Setherlanda 14,400,000 12 mrada 27 89 m:ada 4,820

'4,820 197 645 645 Norway 4,130,000 86 arada 55 89 mrada 1,382 1,382 57 Pakistan 70,600,000 Bo data 89 mrada 23,446 23,446 967 l,32S 1,32S Poland 36,900,000 259 arada 1,470 89 mrada

~,350 12,350 505 A;~~~

8,800,000 le&'ble 89 mrada 2,922 2,922 120

~.661 35,661 22,900,000 770 mrad11 2,713 89 mrada 7,665 7,665 314 l?pain 38,200,000

-.2.6-

  • 15
  • 89 mrad*

12,786 12,786 523 65,795 65,795 371 371 Sweden 8,300,000 496 arada 633 89 mrada 2,778 2,778 114 Swiuerland 6,300,000 236 mrada 236 89 mrada 2,176 2,176 89 15,361

. 15,361 5,724 5,724 Syria 7,300,000 lo data 1:19 mrada

_ 2,424 2,424 100 Taiwan 16,000,000 5o data 0

89 mrada 5,313 5,313 219 Turkey 48,000,000 100 mrada 738 89 mrada 16,066 16,066 657 United Ung'm 56,000,000 65 arads 560 89 mrads

.18,743 18,743 767 17,910 17,910 13,582 13,582 U.S.A.

240,000,000 0,05 2

89 mrada 78,655 78,655 3,218 Yugolllavia 23,000,000 185 arada 655 89 mrada 7,698 7,698 315 44 44 u.s.s.R.

Ukraine Byeloruasia Moldavia Baltic Raps.

Ho11cov Leningrad Remainder

  • sma 50,700,000 9,900,000 4,080,000 7,660,000 8,400,000 4,700,000 170,000,000 SUII (rounded off}

936 mads 714 arada 125 arada 104 mrada 40 mradl 148 aradil llo data 15,877 177,072 26,375 1,903 2,973

-1,254 2.596 15,877 177,072 7,301 26,37S*

1,087 1,903 78 2,973 123 1,254 52 2,596

-107 475,202 475,202 19,59~

amRNOBYL ACCIDENT Total Malipancie11

  • 1,000,000 89 mrada 16,969 16,969 694 89 arada 3,31~

3,314 136 89 mrada 1,366 1,366 56 89 mrad1 2,564 2,564 105 89 mrada 2,811 2,811 l1S 89 mradil 1,573 1,S73 64 89 mrada 56,455 56,455 2,328 992,357 992,357 40,805

Anl)S. WEAPONS-TESTING ---

Total Kalignanciell

  • 2
  • 000, 000
  • Cllemobyl fallout '(little-of which, compared with bomb-debris, circled the globe) vae distributed very unevenly by weather -

particularly wind and rainfall; For instance, fallout wu much heavier in Scotland than in England, and much heavier in the IIOuth of West Gel'IIIIIII} than in the north.

,4

~

, to blame for -failina to point ~ the big diffemicc between -

cl

  • widely accepted" within the radiation indllltrics (where undemated risq l

are helpful), and "widely confirm¢" by independent scientists. The BEIR and UNSCEAR values have definitely not bceh widely conftnncd by -.

independent experts. They have not even been_ widely examined Within the radiation industries. Since so few people have ever looked at the underlyin& epidemiological evidence from which cancer-doses are derived, it is fair to say that most people usin& UNSCEAR and BEIR values literally don't know what they are taDdn& about

  • - The general public and news repor1er1, who also do not evalu- _ -_

ate_ the evidence themsdvcs, arc left with the familiar question: when -*

cxpertl dis8lrce, which onea lhall we believe?

  • - It would make semc io believe the experts who (A) are person- -

ally independent from fundina by any aovemment or-radiation industry, *

(B) can dcmomtrate their own pcnonal acquaintance with the cmtin&

epidemiological. evidence and analyses, and (C) have a track-record of

- makina correct predictions in this field.

  • ;. When the media 11 reportiq on the health comequcnces of smold,rg, for instance, rcportera do not prclCllt e&perU who-arc penoa-aily dependent OD the tobacco industry without identifying the tie; they do not consult experts who arc completely,mfamiliar with the field; and they do pvc their sreatest attention to the work of independent scientists..

Those practices by the press would be appropriate OD the topic of ioniz-ing radiation, too.

--.-.

  • Some Of the Moral Issues ** -.

..,.~;.:...;

--,.....-*.-_*F*or-decadcs,--*thcrc--hu-*been-***d*i*mdi-,OJ'ID&tioti campaign about aonizina'radiation -

a campaign which has consistently told people that tbe cancer hazard from exposure is smaller than it truly ii. Amons the

. aperts participatin& in this campaign, there are at lcat three degrees of

-tbame.

    • _(I) HARDWARE SCIEN11STS WHO *"Jt.llltO'r.

Ia die ntdlatlml lanmles, tbere are 11UJ ldply cempetat eqiaeers, ~

elm, and daemlstl who knew DOthiag alloat ralfatloc epl*emialogJ (tlle

~"'".

stady al 8JOSN lfOIIPI}. AJIII becaae NCietJ tnly aeea a ~

r**. 'labor, It la not their rcsponSI"bility to find out Some of these "hardware types" probably do not even suspect that they are being fed disinforma-tion about health effects. After all, their personal experience in science~

that span.son of research sincerely want truth,* because the sponsors' enterprises will 'fail if their information is fauhy. Some of the "hardware types" may be too naive to realize that in radiation epidemiology, truth is not helpful to those who overwhelmingly sponsor the ~

Some of these "hardware types", instead of speaking only on subjects they under-

_ ltand, happily parrot a head parrot who has memorized the simple line:

"10,000 person-rads per cancer is widely accepted." "Gofman's way off base."

  • (2) BIOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS WHO 'P A1lllOT. In epi-8emiology, biostatmics, health physics, nuclear medicine, and radiology, 9tere are also many experts, fully competent in their own specialties, who know nothing about radiation epidemiology. But it u impouible to beheve they are unaware that -independent icientists Jtave challenged the UNSCEAR and HEIR canca-doses. Yet without stopping to evaluate the evidenc,e and analyses themselves, they are willing to take sides on an issue where millions of people will suffer and die if the wrong side pre-vails. Under such circumstances, speaking out m ignorance amounts to profCSSional malpractice.
  • (3) SCIENTISTS WHO DECEIVE. Information can be a deadly weapon. It does not take a government-made famine, a holocaust, the industry) to do appropriate things about the threat. The consequence.

of disinformation on *health may be anoilia-sevci-c accidcilt somewMe** * -*

kiDm& anotJ,n, half-million people, plus smailcr radiation rdeues adding up to the umc l"CIUlt.

  • - Checrleaden fur the radiation industriea have repeated over and over that the cancer comcqucncea from Chernobyl will be "undetect-able.* That much is true. Even a ""1lJo,, malipanciea will not alter the

-cancer lltatistics because a million will fall within the *error-band.*

  • - Huf *...wfdallle II aot die --
  • laaglnary. We do not need to mcasure*thc additional malignancies,::amed by Chcmobyl in order to

_know~ they will have occumd,-any more than we need to meuurc the gasoline in our car in order to mow that an undetectable amount will have been comumed when we drove the car 10 feet up the driveway. We can bow such things by previous studies and IIUCCeSSfuJ. predictions.

  • * - A new moral low is introduced by the repeated suagestion* that it is socially acceptable to inflict mortal injury on other humans u long u your ~

remain undetectable.

  • - The public hu been reminded incessantly that many more people will die from IJ)01ltaneous cancer than will ever die from Cherno-byl cancer'. True again. In the indUBtrialized world, spontaneous cancer kills about 1 _out of every 6 people, and almost nothin& competes with it as a killer. Certainly murder ~ trivial 'by comparison. Small comfort to murder victims and their families. Even war has been a lesser killer than the natural cancer-rate. Human rights may be under their final siege if society ever accepts the suggestion that anything Jmaller than the natural cancer-rate is an acceptable activity for some people to inflict on others, ifwc just "put things in reasonable perspective."
  • - Since reporters in the commercial press seem deter-*

mined to propagate this awful 'perspective," people who follow a different model of morality will have to, sustain human rights *

  • through the non-commercial, grassroots network. As Americans, we have this p~ous freedom of speech - so rare in the world and only we are to blame if we fail to use it. Edmund Burke (1729-1797) said it best:

"All that ls necessary for.tbe, trhunpb of evil ls that good men do

.nothial-"

Ms. Egan O'Connor or an atomic bomb to kill a million people. D~ormation which under-states the hazard from ionizing radiation will also cause millions of peo-ple to suffer and die (from cancer). The number is huae because every * '*

year, worldwide, hundreds of millions of people receive medical and

. occupational exposures, and these exposures wiU be necdlealy high jf the risk is understated by 22 to 37 times. In the USA alone, 1 1/2.million peo-ple per generation will get win~ cancer just from the ll~ly high doses which are common in diagnostic radiology ( X-Rays. p.369).

: We ~

ydu to reprint this article in as many newsletters, news-papers, and magazines as possible.- Its use in installments would be possible, too. Or excerpts. No permission is required, but the Committee would appreciate receiving a copy of such reproduc-tions. "Master copies*,* on white paper' and without smudges, are available from C.N.R.

  • - Any scientist who knowingly helps to delay or obscure the truth about the hazard from ionizing radiation is an accomplice in ---

live, premeditated, rudont muder. Perhaps such people resort, before their mirrors, to the same refrain which could IUltain everi an informant for the Gestapo or K.G.B.: "If I don't do it, somebody die will."

  • - There is another reason why -disinformation about ionizina radiation IS murderous. By producing gross underestimates of the conse-quences from Otemobyl, disinformation hides the true menace from nuclear ~

plants and les,ens the pressure (both inside and outside Ms. O'Connor is executive director of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility (pob 11207, San Francilco, CA 94101, USA) and co-author with John W. Gofman of the book X-Rays: Htaltlr Effects of Com-

~n Exanu, which was selected by the Library Journal u one of the most important and u¢uJ reference books publiJhed in all of 1985.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23151A574&oldid=5572972"