Debbie asked some reasonable questions about my sources. My original source on the drop in radioactivity in nuclear waste is old enough to be taken from the net (~2-3 years ago). My source on Aberdeen was data taken with oilfield natural gamma ray tool that we had to worry about backgrounds on. So, I found some other sources that at least indicate the same things.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:55 PM Subject: [L3] Re: Scouted: Nuclear waste court woes > Doggone it, Dan, you haven't even given me time to > read&reply to your _other_ post this thread yet! > <theatrical sigh> > > > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Here is an > > > abstract which urges caution in interpreting > > "adverse > > > pregnancy outcomes" and exposure to radiation, yet > > > *did* find a "statistically significant > > association > > > between uranium operations and unfavorable birth > > > outcome was identified with the mother living near > > > tailings or mine dumps." > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1399640&dopt=Abstract > > > They didn't say what statistically significant > > meant. I'd guess 1 sigma > > was statistically significant, but one sigma above > > the line would result in > > a false positive about 15% of the time or so. > > I _used_ to know what "stat sig" was in terms of > numbers in the medical literature; I want to say "by > the chi-squared method" but I'm afraid that I've > forgotten if that's 1 sigma or some other > portion...Hmm, now I think it means "p = or < 0.05" > which I believe is 'better than' 1 sigma... I've > noticed that abstracts are frequently short on hard > data - <grimace> if I were terribly cynical, I'd say > it's so that one must buy the article or journal... Lets look at the 5% number. What is really critical here is how many possible effects they looked for. I know that there are two, and the main one they looked for was the relationship between men working in the mines and birth defects. They had to do a cut to break the data into near to/far from the tailings. That introduces another degree of freedom into the data. If they looked for other effects, and didn't find them and didn't publish them, that affects the probability of finding a 5% effect. Lets say that, in writing the paper, the researchers asked 10 different questions. Each one of them had only a 5% chance of coming up with statistically significant data. There is a 40% chance that at least one of these will show a spurious statistically significant signal. > > And _my_ first thought was "I wonder if that plant is > built on top of old mill tailings?" It can't be that old because uranium mining isn't that old. Further, by law, the exposure from the tailings must be <200 mrem/year. > > But, where could we find similar data? > > Aberdeen and Denver are obvious choices. If the > > tailing pile is that > > dangerous, then Aberdeen should be more dangerous, > > since the background > > level of radiation there is very high. IIRC, it is > > high enough so that it > > would be illegal if it came from an industiral > > exposure to the general public. > > Ooh, so you say, yet you don't give me actual numbers! > I'll try to find it myself *this* time, but next is > _your_ search! :P Sorry, as I said the numbers from Aberdeen are from data I'm personally familiar with. Let me give a different sources. First from health physics, the statement that we have not found variations in cancer that correspond to the natural variations in background radiation: " Even though there are significant differences in background radiation doses across the United States and the world, mainly due to different cosmic and terrestrial components, there does not seem to be a direct correlation between background radiation and cancer rates. " Let me quote http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1097.html "In Europe, the annual dose due to natural background radiation is estimated to range from 2 mSv in the United Kingdom to 7 mSv in Finland. The limit for industrial exposure to civilians is 200 mrem=2mSv. Thus, the natural variation between GB and Finland is significantly higher than the legal limit. And within the US we have: "For example, people living in the northwest region of Washington state receive about 240 millirem per year, on average, from natural and man-made sources, whereas residents of the southeast region of Washington state receive about 630 millirem per year, on average, from natural and man-made sources. The highest levels of exposure in Washington state are experienced by residents in the northeast region who receive doses of about 1,700 millirem per year, most of it from radon in the rock and soil" from http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0337.shtml > > True; yet this _was_ a "population-based case-control > study" which found that "Sixty-three (67%) of the > 94-incident lung cancers among Navajo men occurred in > former uranium miners. The relative risk for a history > of mining was 28.6 (95% confidence interval, > 13.2-61.7)." Thus, of the 94 lung cancers identified > in the population sample, 63 were former uranium > miners. Right, but they didn't say what fraction of the population were miners. I'd not so much skeptical about it happening; it is really likely that this occured...particularly if they didn't use protection and were allowed to smoke. I'm just frustrated by them quoting impressive sounding numbers without adding the one bit of data that would put it in perspective. > This older study (1984, NEJM) found [entire abstract]: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6717538&dopt=Abstract > "We performed a population-based case-control study to > examine the association between uranium mining and > lung cancer in Navajo men, a predominantly nonsmoking > population. The 32 cases included ***all*** those > occurring among Navajo men between 1969 and 1982, as > ascertained by the New Mexico Tumor Registry. For each > case in a Navajo man, two controls with nonrespiratory > cancer were selected. Of the 32 Navajo patients, 72 > per cent had been employed as uranium miners, whereas > no controls had documented experience in this > industry. The lower 95 per cent confidence limit for > the relative risk of lung cancer associated with > uranium mining was 14.4. Information on cigarette > smoking was available for 21 of the 23 affected > uranium miners; eight were nonsmokers and median > consumption by the remainder was one to three > cigarettes daily. These results demonstrate that in a > rural nonsmoking population most of the lung cancer > may be attributable to one hazardous occupation." > [***emphasis mine] > > A 1999 German study: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10564936&dopt=Abstract > "...A comparison of the frequencies of malignancies of > male workers older than 15 years with those of the > population of the mining area for the years 1957 to > 1989 demonstrates a significantly higher percentage of > lung cancer among the uranium miners. There was no > significant difference for other solid cancers and > leukemias." That is a better statement than the one I criticized...but I'd still like to know what significant is. Again, I'd bet that a signal would be found in unprotected uranium miners, but I've seen enough crank the formula use of statistics to want to see the work, instead of just the answer. :-) > > > There is suppose to be _one_ nuclear storage site > > for the US. The waste > > will be stored behind big doors that can be locked. > > All that the > > civilization 200 years from now will have to do is > > keep the doors locked. How hard is that? > > Dan, why do you keep saying "200 years" when the > _government_ sites I've looked at use 'thousands' of > years? Could you give me a cite that states 'in 200 > years nuclear waste storage sites will have radiation > levels no higher than background?' Or 'that of mine > tailings?' Not that I'd want to live over a mine > tailing myself. I couldn't find my origional source, but what I have is the decay curve of the activity. It is at http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Chapter9d.htm The decay in activity is years Cu/kg. 0.04 270000 0.1 10000 1 900 10 200 100 35 200 20 1000 9.5 10000 0.60 100000 0.08 10000000 0.006 You quoted a time frame of 1000 years, and I quoted 200. Note that the activity difference is just a factor of two. The reason for the differences could involve assumptions about the effectiveness of ore processing, ore the exact radiation quantity that is being compared. > Would you feel safe living by one of the transport > routes for high-level waste, given the current traffic > crash/wreck data? Certainly. I'm fairly familiar with the testing required for regular old storage for small sources. They are supposed to be in a head on collision at 60 MPH without a problem. There is no reason that radioactive transport wouldn't have better protection than a simple 2 Cu source. I'd certainly have the train or truck carrying the waste go slower than 60 MPH. While nothing is 100%, one can test the transport multiple times at specs that far exceed the real conditions. > > > <snipped 2 studies that found maternal proximity to > landfill or 'hazardous waste sites' is associated with > congenital anomalies --which I assume you do not > dispute?> If its chemical, I don't know enough chemistry to make an informed critique of the question. Its also not germaine to radiation, which is inherently simple. > > I also think we differ in how much faith we place in > > certain statistical > > signals. Lets take, for example, the reports of > > breast cancer being high > > on Long Island than in the general public. If one > > takes all known risk > > factors into account, they go away. A second is how > > many studies can show > > a 3 sigma correlation with X and some form of > > cancer. This seems to be > > very significant until one realizes that there are > > many different types of > > cancer and a different one has the 3 sigma effect in > > each case. One could > > have the same type of correlation if one were to do > > a number of different > > studies comparing results for people born between > > 1:15 PM and 1:47 PM and the general public. > > Yet the incidence of breast cancer *is* rising, as is > male infertility -- I do not merely take 'on faith' > any statistics; and one must take into account *who* > has funded a study as well, and what is their vested > interest in the outcome. That is why a drug > company-sponsored study carries much less weight than, > say, conclusions drawn from the Framingham database. I won't argue with that. > > The classic example is the data that was claimed, by > > some medical > > researchers, to show a correlation between power > > lines and a number of > > different diseases. The APS used the data to show > > that power lines also > > prevented diseases. The methodology simply overdid > > the risks. > > Yet this is still an area of 'annoying' anomalies... > "Although the interpretation of the available evidence > by most expert bodies has led them to conclude that > exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic > fields is not a human health hazard, a working group > under the auspices of the US National Institute of > Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) concluded that > there was a possible low risk associated with certain > exposures to ELF magnetic fields....therefore the > conclusion of the World Health Organisation that > further research is needed seems valid." > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11008945&dopt=Abstract I read it and it seems to be a very weak claim. > Frex, this report suggests that aerosolized pollutants > are more likely to be deposited in lungs, near areas > of excess electrical charge: "This analysis suggests > that typically 2000 excess negative charges per cm3 > are required to match the measured DC fields. Such > space charge will result in unipolar aerosol charging > in excess of the normal bipolar steady state charge > distribution of pollutant aerosols..." If this is true, then there should be a very big signal in childhood leukemia based on what city one lives in or near. Air pollution varies significantly, and local variation around power lines seems much less likely to be a factor than the overall pollution. Further, lung problems, not leukemia, have been associated with pollution, so that signal should be stronger with power lines too. Further, if you take these seriously, then it seems reasonable to take the anomolies that indicate that power lines prevent disease should be taken equally seriously. >> If we did really want > > that standard, wouldn't > > we need to get rid of bridges, for example? > > Now, now, no need to get snide... ;) I didn't say it to be snide, but to give order of magnitude problems. >We certainly > ought to crack down on obvious disasters-every-year > like drunk driving, which kills, disables and injures > thousands of Americans annually. And if everybody > simply exercised moderately for 30 min 5 days a week, > the incidence of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease > and stroke would decrease by ~ 50% (my best > guesstimate, but some say much more, others a bit > less). By your numbers, then, having everyone exercise 30 minutes once a year would be more important that the radiation problems we've been talking about. :-) > > Do you have any numbers on transport risks? Although > these will mostly be theoretical, since AFAIK > high-level waste has been stored pretty much where it > was/is being generated. Here's some numbers. Estimates for radiation dose from transportation, based on the exposure of a person standing 100 feet from a vehicle that is carrying waste and moving 15 miles per hour, is about 0.0004 millirem. A person would receive 5,000 to 12,500 times more radiation dose on a round-trip flight from Los Angeles to New York on a commercial airline (2-5 millirem). If a person were to stand 100 feet from a transportation route 24 hours a day for 24 years, and were exposed to all truck shipments (approximately 50,000), that person would receive a total whole-body radiation dose of about 20 millirem. During the same 24-year timeframe, that same person would receive over 7,000 millirem from natural background radiation. from http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0337.shtml again. > I agree that a self-selected sample is more suspect > than a randomely-selected one; I should have looked > harder. Interestingly, most of the studies based only > on military hospital records do not find a correlation > between adverse pregnancy outcomes and active/deployed > duty, but this 2003 one..... Think about that statement. For every 100 studies of X alone, one should expect 1 that has an outcome that has a 1% or less chance of being a statistical anomoly. Further, if one runs studies that looks for 10 things, and only publishes the interesting results, then only 10 studies like this are needed. > > All your examples are point or short-term risks, not > "hundreds or thousands of years" of risk, and those > engaged in the activities have _chosen_ to do so. But, the hundreds of thousands of years of risk can't be that high because the risk is inversely porportional to the half life. Lets look at what happened when close to a worst case scenerio came true. With Chernobyl, there was no containment building, the technicians were actually playing dangerous games with the reactor, causing about 40% of the radiation at the plant to be released into the atmosphere as the plant burned. Yet, the confirmed civilian death toll was only 100. Sure, 100 is 100 too many, but that's still 1 days worth of car accidents. >And I just saw an > interesting snippet on current technology that greatly > reduces car emissions for only several hundred dollars > more per car (airtight steel gas tank instead of leaky > plastic one, catalytic converter warmed sooner, and I > forget the third measure)...PVEZ? I think these cars > are called? [I already deleted the MIT Tech review > this came from, sorry!] But, there is no reduction in C02 emmisions from this. If global warming is even at the lower end of expectations, the negative results from this would be far worse than from nuclear power. > > > The reason that forests shrunk so is due more to > > your profession than any > > other profession. <grin>. What stopped the loss of > > forests > > No, US logging is *still* being pushed, frex by the > current administration - and world-wide, we are still > losing forest acreage at an alarming rate. "Ghost > Bear Island's" 10,000 year old forest in Canada is > being logged; logging roads contribute hugely to the > slaughter of primates and other animals for bushmeat > in Africa....I could go on at length. :-( > http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ghostbear/html/body_intro.html > http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9904/23/bushmeat.enn/ But, we have slightly more of the US forested than was forested 80 years ago. > >was the advent > > of tractors and the improvement of the technology of > > farming. I have no > > argument with limiting or eliminating the harvest of > > old growth redwoods > > now, but that's only a small fraction of the reason > > the forests in the US > > are much smaller than 400 years ago. > > <scratches head> Our voracious appetite for redwood > decking? Japanese appetite for redwood chopsticks? I > did not mean *only* to stop redwood harvest -- the > complex ecology of old growth forest is in no way > replaced by timber plantations (although I applaud > setting up such a renewable resource, just not at the > expense of primary forest); the loss of potential > medically useful plants alone makes me howl, to say > nothing of "useless" fripperies like monarch > butterflys or hyacinth macaws. Or chimpanzees and > gorillas. :-( But, most of the primarly forest in the US was gone by 1920. The reason for this was the need for farm land and for pasture land for the horses that pulled the plows and the combines. When tractors were introduced, the need for pasture land went way down. It had been about 1 for 1 until tractors came. With modern farming methods, the yields are increased by 10x, while improving the land instead of letting it go. Let me give examples from two places where I lived. Central Conn is mostly forest now. There are stone walls from old pastures in the middle of the woods because it use to be farm land. And, in Minn, I had a county job for a couple summers cutting brush and planting trees. Back in the 50's the trees were planted in nice rows. But, by the early '70s, we were told to not plant them in regular rows. So, the idea of tree plantations isn't all that accurate...at least where I've been involved. > > Nuclear power is the only know technology that can > > be a cost effective > > substitute for fossil fuels. The risks associated > > with nuclear power are > > much lower. I'd be willing to bet that the loss of > > life per MWh associated > > with wind and solar power will be greater than > > nuclear, too. Yet, nuclear > > is the one everyone is afraid of. > > Given our government's history of nuclear cover-up (I > refer to the fifties and sixties), and this > administration's twisting of science findings and > uncertainties (see the article Kneem posted re: letter > from multiple nobel laureates etc.) to fit its agenda, > I think caution is justified. But, why have a totally different criterion for nuclear than anything else? Nuclear power has been around for about 50 years, and provides a noticeable fraction of the power in the developed world. 100 people die in something close to a worst case scenario disaster in a country that was run by a government that showed a wanton disregard for human life. And, that's about all that can be directly attributed to power plants. What I don't really understand is why a .01% risk from nuclear power is much worse than a 1% risk from something else. You seem to compare might be a problem for things like nuclear and might be fixed for things like cars. Why not apples vs. apples? For example, 20k per year die from falls. We know that only a fraction of these come from falls from roofs, but we know that getting on the roof is dangerous. Yet, solar power will require a large increase in trips to the roof. Why are those deaths to be ignored; why not calculate the likely deaths for each to determine which is safer? Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
