home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!naughty-peahen
- From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
- Newsgroups: talk.environment
- Subject: Re: TMI Releases & Population Dose
- Date: 25 Jan 1993 10:38:04 GMT
- Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
- Lines: 26
- Message-ID: <Jym.25Jan1993.0237@naughty-peahen>
- References: <1992Dec31.034210.16668@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
- <Jym.8Jan1993.0930@naughty-peahen>
- <1993Jan10.232841.22830@pmafire.inel.gov>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
- In-reply-to: russ@pmafire.inel.gov's message of 10 Jan 93 23:28:41 GMT
-
- > The central estimate of population dose was about 2000
- > person-rem for the 541,000 persons living within 50 miles.
- > This is an average dose of 4 mrem.
-
- =o= I presume these numbers come from the Tokuhata studies,
- since that's the source you keep trotting out. Care to go
- into detail about how these estimates are made? Care to give
- any numbers reflecting a variance in dose, rather than some
- flat average?
-
- >> It is well-documented that MetEd does not have measurements
- >> of the radiation released . . .
- > There is, of course, a difference between "radiation released"
- > and "dose". That distinction seems to have eluded Mr. Dyer.
-
- =o= The distinction does not elude me at all. What does elude
- me, though, is how you think you can get away from the fact that
- "radiation released" somehow has no effect on "dose received."
-
- =o= In fact, the premise that only small amounts of radiation
- was released (a premise proven false by every independent
- analysis of the accident) has had a very direct effect on the
- studies used to estimate the dose received. Since the official
- amount released was small, Tokuhata saw no point in actually
- monitoring the health of hundreds of thousands of people.
- <_Jym_>
-