Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: life of nuclear wastes
Message-ID: <523@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Jul-86 23:32:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.523
Posted: Sun Jul 13 23:32:16 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jul-86 01:30:19 EDT
References: <333@argus.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.politics:17340 net.sci:1238

[Kenneth Ng]
>When inhaled, plutonium is more dangerous: 1300 milligrams to cause
>cancer.  

The figure I have read in various places is that < 1 *microgram* of
Pu is sufficient to cause cancer if inhaled.  It is less toxic if it
is not lodged in lungs or absorbed into bloodstream.  Something is
amiss if published estimates differ by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude.
Here are some references to check:

Cohen, Bernard L.  "The Hazards in Pu Dispersal."  Inst. for Energy
 Analysis, March 1975.
Edsall, John T.  "Toxicity of Pu and some other actinides."  Bull.
 Atomic Scientists, Sept. 1976, pp. 27-37.
Gofman, John W., M.D.  "The Cancer Hazard From Inhaled Pu."  Comm.
 for Nucl. Responsibility, CNR Report 1975-IR, 5/15/75.
______.  "Estimated Production of Human Lung Cancers by Pu from
 Worldwide Fallout."  CNR, 7/10/75.
______.  "The Pu Controversy."  Reprint, J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 236,
 7/19/76.
Lisco, H., M.P. Finkel, and A.M. Brues.  "Carcinogenic Properties of
 Radioactive Fission Products and of Pu."  Radiology 49 (1947), p. 361.

>As a side note: plutonium cannot be too toxic, there are about 2 to 3
>tons of it floating in the air from the atmospheric atomic bomb
>tests.  

Well, that's a relief.  However, your logic escapes me.

>Eh, most of my references are not books commonly available in
>bookstores.  Most are articles taken from technical journals and from
>various reports, such as the TMI, Rassmussen, and Lewis reports.

Since most of the Lovinses' many references are to the technical
literature, I am not sure what difference it makes that their books
are written primarily for a lay audience as well as the interested
professional.  You see, they (and I) believe we should not let an
elite of experts make hugely important decisions of public policy for
us, as long as we still have a democratic society.

>But all these so called soft energy paths are missing something very
>important.  They all depend upon the utility company being able to
>supply power when more than about 3 days of sunless days occur.  

I don't follow this (the wind blows, water flows downhill, and plants
grow even on cloudy days) but in any case you seem to have very
oversimplified ideas of what "soft energy paths" are all about.  If
you want to be well-informed about energy issues, please read what
people who disagree with the nuclear advocates are saying.  The
Lovinses' books are an excellent place to start.

Richard Carnes