<p><p><p><p>After having expirence that few of us have, hanging Nuclear weapons on fighter air craft, NATO, 1966-1969. I may or may not have had a lifetime exposure to radiation above that of most people, without presumably ill effect. One of my jobs was to glide my hands all over the bomb for “warm” spots, if warmth would have been found just once, a “BROKEN ARROW” would have been declared. These things are heavily shielded. It maybe that since my film badge was never exposed, I may have had no exposure. That being said, safety was a priority and strictly adhered to. I concur you can never take for granted the behavior is still the same for all of the new applications of even small amounts of this material.</p></p></p></p>

Report comment abuse

I received a comment on this article from a student at a top engineering school, and my brother who teaches at the same university asked me to encourage the student’s engagement by responding in turn. Sorry about the awkward formatting due to pasting in from another system:

> > Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:36:26 -0600
> > From: Steven Spalsbury
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: [KS-CleanEnergy]

> > To: ENVIRONMENT@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
> >
> > Hey listserv!
> >
> > After reading this article I felt obligated to
> > present some scientific
> > facts about nuclear power (since I am majoring in
> > Mechanical/Nuclear
> > Engineering) as opposed to the multiple opinions
> > given by Jack Straw.
> >
> > 1. The entire world is already “low-level”
> poisoned.
> >
> > The entire world receives a massive dose of
> > radiation every day from
> > the cosmos. This radiation causes ionization in
> the
> > upper atmosphere,
> > but the atmosphere attenuates most of the
> radiation
> > energy, just as the
> > lead shields attenuate all but a negligible
> amount
> > of the radiation
> > produced inside of a nuclear reactor. Alpha and
> > beta particle
> > emissions deposit all of their energy in a very
> > short distance in the
> > air, while gamma rays travel further in air.
> Since
> > the radiation is
> > attenuated by the lead shields of the nuclear
> > reactor the escaping
> > products have such a small energy it is very
> > unlikely that they will
> > make it ten meters past the shields, much less
> > outside of the compound.
> > There are many precautions taken (e.g. no food
> > inside) so that no
> > poisoned substances are taken outside of the
> > compound by employees.
> >
> > 2. It’s amazing how much in radioactive poison
> > emissions is considered
> > acceptable for nuclear power plants already in
> > operation.
> >
> > I think that this is referring to spent fuel,
> so
> > I will respond with
> > that in mind. Recycling spent fuel is a no
> brainer,
> > but for some
> > reason the U.S. is the only major country that
> > doesn’t recycle it’s
> > spent fuel, but hopefully in the near future the
> > government will come
> > to its senses. Also, much research is being
> > conducted on reactors that
> > use very low enriched uranium to even further
> reduce
> > the dangers of
> > spent fuel.
> >
> > 3. A lot of dangerously radioactive materials
> reach
> > us from nuclear
> > energy and from nuclear manufacturing industry
> > facilities, equipment,
> > and supplies. A lot reach us from medical, food
> > processing, and other
> > industries.
> >
> > Radiation is all around us, and that is not so
> > much due to human
> > actions as it is due to the nature of our world.
> > The white paint on
> > your walls emits gamma rays, the ceramic plate
> you
> > eat off of emits
> > alpha particles, the list could go on and on.
> > Radiation is not only
> > caused by nuclear reactors, but by nature every
> > nanosecond of every
> > day.
> >
> > 4. The public is systemically exposed to
> > radioactive fuels,
> > by-products, waste, and recycling because (to
> > mention only several)
> > a) radioactive gold recycled into metal for
> > jewelry, dental, etc.;
> >
> > The energies of these radiation emissions
> are
> > not even strong
> > enough to penetrate human skin, so unless you eat
> > multiple gold rings,
> > you are perfectly safe.
> >
> > b) the ionizing polonium hidden in household
> > smoke detectors.
> >
> > Once again, the energy of the particles
> > emitted by these detectors
> > have a range of less than one foot in air, and are
> > not powerful enough
> > to cause any harm unless you decide to eat a
> smoke
> > detector.
> >
> >
> > In closing, I do believe that solar and wind
> power
> > present two of the
> > greatest possibilities to solve our energy
> problem,
> > but calling for a
> > stop to nuclear and thermonuclear technologies is
> > just illogical. The
> > scientific research into the quantum mechanics of
> > nuclear physics has
> > and will continue to provide us with immense
> gains
> > in technology (thank
> > quantum physics for the computer you are reading
> > this on) and in the
> > understanding of the physical world around us.
> >
> > Thanks for your time,
> >
> > Steven Spalsbury
> >
Hi J,
I believe the student who responded to
your argument is being indoctrinated in
nuclear safety assumptions as part of
his training. I hope you do get a chance
to answer him, and I would like to see
your reply.
Love, Robb

JS wrote:

> Robb Thanks, I’m paying bills at the moment then
> have to run them to the
> post office. However I want to give a pretty simple
> response to the student’s
> comments, and will do it not long after I return.
> Love ~ J
>

>
>Here it is, Robb. Feel free to edit and
>submit to the listserve.
>Love ~ J
Jack Straw responds to Steven Spalsbury:

I really appreciate Steven Spalsbury’s partial critique of my “Choose my poison?…” article on the
dangers of nuclear technology, because it shows he has taken the effort to read the article and thus
face and consider uncomfortable features of our nuclear age. Just about every statement in my
article has lots of support and discussion information accessible on the web and in print, and I
meant it to stimulate not only argument but investigation and study leading to action. I’m glad

Steven is
thinking about these topics, because we will need top minds like Steven’s in mechanical and nuclear
engineering, to help us safely and thoroughly wind down and clean up after the 20th century’s
nuclear adventure.

As a scientist myself, I agree with Steven that quantum mechanics, physics, computers, are wonderful
tools and indispensible sources of understanding, and thus of opportunities for progress. I’m sure
most of us would include Mom and apple pie in that list. Yet genuine progress presupposes robust
provisions for safety, and a deep regard for health and for the earth as habitat for all living
species. Or deepest concern in this discussion must be with safety implications of technological
choices. Steven closed his parade of familiar rationales (aka “scientific facts”), with an appeal

to
logic. Indeed we must all seek logic, facts and humane values in considering the gravity of our
current, radioactively contaminated circumstances, and what to do about them.

~ Jack Straw

PS: That was my short courteous response to Steven Spalsbury and for benefit of quick reading on the

listserve. To stimulate thought although I may not have time to return for further discussion, I

offer the listserve a quick run through those few parts of my article that Steven comments upon,

showing in sequence: my statement, then his comment(s) on it, and sometimes an added comment or two

of my own.

Steven, please excuse that I’ve rephrased our comments for clarity.

SS: A statement by Steven
JS article: a statement from my article
SSA#: One of Steven’s answers to a statement in my article
JS: a new comment by me

JS article: The entire world is already low-level poisoned due to past and ongoing production
and distribution of radioactive contamination from nuclear development, weapons, and industry.

SSA1 The entire world receives a massive dose of radiation every day from the cosmos, and our earth
protects us from it.

JS: Our earth does not protect us from radiation emitted by radioactive contamination originating in
our development and application of nuclear technologies.

JS: Just because there is substantial background radioactivity in our lives and habitat, doesn’t
make the radiation sources and exposures we add into the mix welcome or safe.

SSA2 Lead shields attenuate all but a negligible amount of the radiation produced inside of a
nuclear reactor…

SSA3 There are many precautions taken…so that no poisoned substances leave the [reactor] compound.

JS: What’s still inside adequate lead shielding, or still controlled by careful handling, may not
yet threaten us. And I’m not even addressing reaction controls, just the radioactive materials
themselves. However, huge quantities of dangerously radioactive nuclear byproducts (including but
not limited to spent nuclear fuel and radioactive fallout deposited across the entire world and
especially across nuclear weapons development sites and across very very broad regions downwind of
those sites) are already contaminating large areas of our earth. There are also storage facilities
of spent fuel, decommissioned but still radioactive reactor coolants, construction materials, etc.
present on the premises of every nuclear energy plant.

JS article: Aamazing amounts of radioactive poison emissions are considered acceptable for
nuclear power plants already in operation.

SS: I think that this is referring to spent fuel…

JS: No, I’m talking about how current regulations allow high levels of everyday direct into the
environment emissions, of radioactive materials, especially (deuterium) in liquid and gas
phases, from power generating plants — not to mention accidental “releases,” “leaks,”"escapes,”
etc., and how this has been going on all over the world, for decades. Most of these emissions of
environmental poisons are not recoverable, and some are designed into the technology. But please, go
ahead with your comments.

SSA4: Recycling spent fuel is a no brainer, it’s unwise not to regenerate or enrich spent fuel.

JS: Recycling spent fuel, eg enrichment, “breeder reactors,” etc. does not eliminate the spent
fuels. Rather, it produces plutonium for reactor and weapons uses, and depleted uranium for weapons
uses, and slightly reduces the need for mining and processing of uranium — these are the only
useful products. Recycling spent fuel leaves a great proportion of the spent fuel as useless,
dangerous radioactive waste.

SSA5: It is hoped that new types of nuclear reactors now in development will use very low

enriched uranium and thus reduce the dangers of spent fuel.

JS article: Let’s not throw good money after bad. It’s already going to be very expensive just to
clean up after and phase out past and existing nuclear technology.

SSA6, rephrasing SSA1: Ionizing radiation is all around us,

SSA7: Ionizing radiation all around us is more due to the nature of our world, than it is due to
human actions.

SSA8 White paint on walls, and ceramic plates, and many similar things, are emitters of radiation
and are radioactive because of nature, not because of human actions, eg not because of how we make
and use these radioactive household items.

SSA9, again rephrasing SSA1: Radiation is not only caused by nuclear reactors, but by nature every
nanosecond of every day.

JS article: The public is systemically exposed to radioactive medical technology, energy producion
fuels, various nuclear industry products and by-products, waste, and recycling…

SSA10: The energies of these radiation emissions are not even strong enough to penetrate human skin,
so…you are perfectly safe [from these radioactive materials recycled into our lives].

JS: Gold tooth fillings and crowns are inside our bodies. Radionuclides injected for heart imaging,
etc., or implanted for cancer treatment, last for weeks inside patients’ bodies, and affect not

only the patients but the people they associate with too. We live in buildings, and drive cars, and

use appliances and furniture made with recycled metals from many sources, unfortunately including

radioactive metals decommissioned from nuclear industries and sold for recycling.

JS article: Radioactive polonium [now add: amerianium and thorium, etc. once or still manufactured
into built into ubiquitous household items like incandescent lightbulb filaments, fluorescent lamps,
smoke detectors, antistatic brushes…] in smoke detectors is dangerously radioactive.

SSA12: The radiation emitted by these detectors is not powerful enough to cause any harm unless you
are very near to them or unless you ingest the polonium.

JS: One of our difficulties here is that for the most part it is the nuclear industry and nuclear
medicine who set the thresholds, the allowable / not allowable radiation exposure standards. SS
concedes it’s dangerous to be within a foot of the radioactive polonium in household appliances like
smoke detectors, and that it’s dangerous to ingest the radioactive polonium or americum. There is no
effective control of smoke detector distribution or their disposal, destruction or recycling, so
tiny specks of polonium oxide, like plutonium compounds from past weapons testing, may follow
circuitous or direct paths to human environments and to inhalation or ingestion by humans.

SS: Scientific research into the quantum mechanics of nuclear physics has and will continue to
provide us with immense gains in technology (thank quantum physics for the computer you are reading
this on) and in the understanding of the physical world around us.

JS: I agree that theoretical physics and much of scientific and science-based technology are

wonderful. As mentioned bove, I also love Mom and apple pie.

SS: Calling for a stop to nuclear and thermonuclear technologies is just illogical.

JS: Only illogical? Thanks for thinking and writing about these issues.

A couple of interesting resources:

An annotated Periodic Table of the Elements at http://elements.wlonk.com/ElementUses.htm shows uses
of the radioactive elements, atomic weights 84 (polonoium) and heavier. Virtually the only uses are
for nuclear fuel, nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, other nuclear industry, smoke detectors
(americum, maybe not polonium), and scientific instruments. Some of these applications we may well
consider indispensible for now and thus in need of improvement, at least until alternative

technologies are strengthened.

Professional physicists, mostly well-disposed toward nuclear technology, answer questions about
radioactivity in everyday life at : http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat40.htmlinterested

Read between the lines.

~ JS

Report comment abuse