Science in Christian Perspective
Nukes or No Nukes? A bsolute Thinking
in a Relative World
David L. Willis
Dr. 'Willis, a former President of the ASA and editor of Origins and
Change,
is Professor of Radiation Biology, General Science Department, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331.
From: JASA 32 (June1980): 102-108.
A public controversy over commercial nuclear power has boiled along throughout
the 1970's. Anti-nuclear groups, at first only local, have coalesced
into a national
movement. Their tactics and rhetoric often appear borrowed from other causes of
the 1960's. The nuclear industry, on the other side, lobbies forcefully for the
nuclear option as both safe and cheap. A dialogue of the deaf ensues
to the confusion
of the general public. Scientists have been enlisted 00 each side. However, few
if any authors with appropriate technical expertise have addressed the issues
involved in Christian publications prior to this issue of the Journal ASA. This
article is a small contribution in that direction.
First, some personal background may reveal at least minimal
competence in certain
aspects of this controversy. My teaching and research for nearly two
decades have
centered on radioactivity and radiation in the environment (radioecology). I've
coauthored two major textbooks in the field of radioactive tracer techniques.1,2
A sabbatical leave was spent in the Ecological Sciences Division of Oak Ridge
National Laboratory researching the movement of radionuclides in
freshwater habitats.
I've participated in the three most recent national symposia on radioechology (1967,
1971, 1975), as well as many national and international meetings in this field.
Active membership in two major professional societies (Radiation
Research Society
and Health Physics Society) has provided regular contact with other scientists
in this field.
Until 1970 my professional interests in environmental radioactivity
were largely
within the confines of the academic "ivory tower." in the autumn of
that year, I was contacted by the Portland General Electric Company (Portland,
OR) to serve as a consultant on environmental radioactivity. The
Company was then
constructing the first nuclear power station (Trojan) in the state and had run
head on into a determined group of environmental opponents. The major
concern was
over proposed radioactive discharges from Trojan into the lower Columbia River
and their possible environmental consequences.
At first I naively assumed that PGE most indeed he planning very large releases
of radioactivity to occasion such public opposition. When shown the engineering
projections of the specific radionuclides and the annual amounts of each to he
discharged, I blurted out, "You most he kidding!" From a
radioecological
and public health standpoint, the planned effluents represented no
cause for concern.
The state's universities and hospitals probably pot more radioactivity down the
sewer each year. How could anyone be worried about this? I was soon to find out
in a series of permit hearings, legislative committee appearances and
stockholder's
meetings, as well as from shooting pickets, biased reporters, and
insistent questioners
who really didn't seek answers. Eventually I completed the requested report on
radioactive releases.3 This was ultimately incorporated in the final
environmental
impact statement for Trojan.4 However, this harsh education in public conflict
on technical issues left me deeply troubled.
As an educator since 1952, I instinctively felt that controversy over technical
matters would be alleviated by better education of the public. Of
course, in the
case of nuclear power plants there were the added problems of
unfamiliar concepts
and units (rems, rads, curies, etc.) and the historical relation to frightening
nuclear weapons. For several years subsequently I volunteered to give lectures
to teacher and citizen groups around the state in hope of developing
a more rational
climate. Sad to say, I've lost enthusiasm for that approach. There appear to be
too many people who "have their minds made up and don't want to
be disturbed
by facts," even in religious circles. Hopefully, members of the American
Scientific Affiliation and other readers of this Journal are exceptions. Thus,
in a general and semi-technical manner, I'd like to provide a
perspective on environmental
radioactivity and radiation in relation to nuclear power plants.
Much of the difficulty in this area comes from inappropriate and naive absolute
thinking. Things are perceived as either good or had, safe or unsafe, existent
or non-existent, either this or that but nothing in between. Thus, my two major
points will be: (1) There is no such thing as zero, and (2) There is
no such thing
as 100%.
There Is No Such Thing as Zero
The anti-nuclear movement has laid great stress on the biologically
damaging effects
of ionizing radiation, the insidious movement of radioactive isotopes through
the environment and the persistence (long half-life) of radioactive
wastes. Obviously
these are matters of concern. however, the frequent use of half-truths and the
presentation of worst case examples as typical, usually project a
grossly distorted
picture to the uninitiated. A major error is the implication that radioactivity
and radiation in the environment are new and sinister phenomena on
earth. In fact,
just the contrary is true. These are quite natural phenomena that have existed
since the time of creation. Moreover, all evidence suggests that
natural radiation
levels were much higher in past ages. Today we live in a "sea of
radiation"
as have all living things that preceded us on earth, Any evaluation of possible
harmful effects of environmental radiation from nuclear power
stations must first
consider these natural radiation doses for a proper perspective.
1. Cosmic Radiation
High energy particles (protons, alpha particles, etc.) constantly bombard the
earth from both the son and outer space. Only the shielding of the
earth's atmosphere
prevents the full force of this cosmic radiation from reaching 05 00
the earth's
surface. The primary particles are almost totally attenuated by
interaction with
the upper atmosphere and only less energetic secondary radiation resulting from
this interaction penetrates to sea level. This cosmic radiation results in an
average dose of 26 milhrem per year to individuals living at sea level in the
U.S.A.5
Since the atmosphere shields us from incoming cosmic rays, people at
higher altitudes
receive larger radiation doses. For example, the annual cosmic ray
dose in Denver,
GO, is 50 mrem-twice that at New York City. Furthermore, Leadvillc, GO, with a
population of about 10,000 at 3200 meter altitude, has an annual dose
of 125 mrem
from cosmic radiation No rational person would suggest evacuation of Denver and
other such cities to reduce radiation exposures to their populations. However,
the increased radiation exposure entailed in living there is five
times the maximum
exposure (5 mrem) allowed by federal regulations for anyone living
near a nuclear
power station.
2. Radiation from Cosmmogenic Radioactivity
Cosmic ray interaction with the earth's atmosphere results in the
continuous production
of a variety of radionuclides. Tritium (hydrogen-3) and carbon-14 are the most
important with regard to human concern. These have radioactive
half-lives of about
12 years and 5,700
years, respectively. This allows time for them to circulate down to the earth's
surface and be incorporated in all plants and animals. (In the case
of carbon-14,
this is the
basis for age-dating of ancient carbon-containing remains.) Every human being
carries a body burden of these radionuclides. For example, a 155-lb.
man typically
has about 77 nCi of carbon- 14 in his body,5 or, put another way, about 170,000
radioactive disintegrations per minute. However, this results in an annual dose
of less than one milliren.
3. Radiation from Primordial Radioactivity
The decay rate of some radioactive isotopes is so slow that
appreciable quantities
still exist from the time of creation, in other words, their half-lives are of
the order of billions of years. Most of these isotopes occur in connection with
decay "chains". A parent radioisotope (such
as uranium-238) decays to a daughter (such as thorium-
234) which decays further through a series of steps to an eventual
non-radioactive
endproduct-an isotope of lead. These decay chains are restricted to the heavier
elements (radium, uranium, thorium, etc.). Such radioisotopes are
widely distributed
in rock, soil, water and even the human body. One wag has observed that every
city in America has unwittingly established a radioactive waste
storage facility-its
cemetery! Local concentrations of these primordial radionuclides vary greatly
(by several orders of magnitude) over the earth.
Rarely are such natural sources of radioactivity considered public
health hazards.
However, some local populations are exposed to exceptional concentrations. For
example, nearly 50,000 people in northern Illinois near Joliet
consume drinking
water whose radium-226 content approaches the maximum concentration permitted
by federal regulations.6 Populations of many thousands in certain radioactively
"hot" spots in eastern Brazil and southern India receive
annual radiation
doses 5-21) times greater than the average U.S. population from
primordial radioactivity.6
Intensive studies of possible biological damage from such doses to these groups
have yielded either negative or statistically equivocal results.
Potassium-40 is another important primordial nuclide. This
biologically significant
element is quite soluble and, thus, present in freshwater, the oceans and the
body fluids of all living things. A 155-lb. man typically has a body content of
about 120 nCi of potassium-40. In other words, about 260,000
radioactive disintegrations
per minute (dpm) occur in his body continually from potassium-40
alone. For marine
organisms the potassium-40 body burden is much greater due to the
higher potassium
concentration of seawater. This potassium-40 in our bodies delivers an annual
radiation dose of about 20 mrem.5
The mean annual whole-body radiation dose in the USA from all these
natural sources
is about 80 mrem,5 Elevation and local geology lead to variations in
this value.
For example, residents of the Denver, CO, area receive a dose of
about 125 mrem.5
All concern about added radiation and radioactivity to the
environment from nuclear
power stations must be viewed in comparison to these natural background levels.
Radionuclide releases from nuclear plants are not added to zero. Instead, they
represent only a very small incremental addition to naturally
occurring quantities.
Failure to understand (or admit) this has caused foes of nuclear power to
adopt ridiculous positions.
The misplaced concern over projected tritium releases from the Trojan reactor
are a case in point. Engineering designs clearly indicated that much
larger quantities
of tritium would be released during regular operation (about 720 Ci/yr.) than
all other radionuclides put together (about 150 micro-Ci/yr.)4 Critics seized
on this value as an indication of the extreme hazard posed by the
plant's operation.
These tritium releases when diluted by the immense flow of the
adjacent Columbia
River would result in a mean downstream water concentration of 3.6
pCi/liter (pico
Ci/liter = l0-12 Ci/liter). Assuming the opponent's good faith, we attempted to
set this value in some meaningful perspective as follows:
(1) Since the minimum detection limit for tritium was 200 pCi/liter,
river concentrations
would be quite undetectable.
(2) The Columbia River and surface waters generally in the Pacific
Northwest already
contained about 500 times this concentration of tritium from fallout
and natural
sources. Thus, the operation of the Trojan plant would add an increment of only
0.2.
(3) Seasonal variations in the tritium concentration of the River from high to
low water flow were already approximately 1000 times as great as the
nuclear plant's
projected addition.
(4) The maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of tritium in
drinking water set
by federal regulations was over 830,000 times the result of the
plant's discharges.
This MPC level had been established based on the best scientific
evidence available.
Did this convince the critics? Sad to say, no. Such figures didn't even seem to
faze them in the slightest. They steadily replied, "Any
radioactive releases
are dangerous."
Their repeated, insistent demand was for "zero release" of
radioactivity.
This stance evidenced a basic misunderstanding of the concept of
zero. The general
public is usually comfortable with whole number values, but is quite
uneasy when
faced with exponents. From the scientific standpoint, exponential expressions
are the rule. There is no measured value that cannot be divided by ten. There
is no such thing as zero in this case.
With greater and greater dilution of an environmental pollutant we eventually
reach a concentration below the minimum detection limit. While we can calculate
a value for such a concentration (say 10-18 pCi/l), we can in no way
measure it.
For all practical purposes such radioactivity values can be
disregarded as cause
for any alarm, but they are not mathematically "zero."
In summary, there is no such thing as zero radiation or radioactivity
in the environment.
The routine operation of nuclear power plants results in only
miniscule incremental
releases of radioactivity in relation to natural, pre-existing
levels. These effluents
are well under established MPC values and are typically far below
detection limits.
It would appear that those who oppose nuclear
power on the basis of public hazard from routine operations are either grossly
misinformed or less than honest.
Fortunately, this situation has come to he understood by most
responsible critics.
Their opposition has more reasonably focused on real or imagined
hazards from
accidents. Even here, however, a distinct lack of perspective seems
evident.
There Is No Such Thing as 100%
"Safe" is probably the most misused word in the current controversy
over nuclear power. It is routinely used by advocates and opponents alike as an
absolute term. In reality it is strictly relative. It is
quantitative, not qualitative.
As an example of gross misuse, my local U.S. congressman issued a newsletter to
his constituents in July 1979 with the provocative statement, "There are
only two kinds of power from which to choose: safe power or unsafe power"
(italics mine). The remainder of his comments were ten reasons for
opposing nuclear power.7 This simplistic approach may win votes, but it shows little
understanding
of the complex issues involved.
A dictionary definition of "safe" usually reads.,"
Free from danger
or risk." The slightest reflection, however, reveals that no
human activity
is safe in an absolute sense. Is flying safe? Is driving an automobile safe? Is
skiing safe? Is skydiving safe? Is bathing safe? Obviously each of
these activities
has some degree of hazard or risk. Some are safer than others, but
injury or death
routinely result from engaging in them. Each of us regards these and
other human
activities as safer or less safe depending on such factors as our
personal experience,
physical ability, age, etc. Thus, safety is "a subjective, relativistic,
evolving, shifting judgment based on each person's current value
priorities."
Safety is not an absolute or intrinsic property.
A misunderstanding of the relative nature of safety seems to lie at the root of
many of the antinuclear arguments. This usually takes the form of exaggerating
recognized risks and/or conjuring up phantom risks. In all fairness, it should
he added that some over-ardent nuclear proponents have often
unreasonably dismissed
legitimate concerns about nuclear safety. The question is not, "is nuclear
power safe?" The essential question is "How safe is nuclear power in
comparison to other means of generating electricity?" We must
clearly recognize
that all such technologies (burning coal, hydroelectric dams, etc.) have some
degree of risk. It is this author's perception that foes of nuclear power have
greatly exaggerated its risks. At the same time, they have chosen to ignore the
hazards of the only viable alternatives. These exaggerations fall
naturally into
several categories.
1. Confusing Possibility with Probability
Dramatic doomsday predictions of "possible" accidents at
nuclear power
plants are frequently made by nuclear power opponents. "The
China Syndrome"
is representative of this approach. The possibility that a serious accident at
a nuclear station could seriously harm the nearby population is not really in
doubt. It is precisely because
such a possibility exists that the most extreme precautions are
exercised in the
design and operation of these plants. Major reactor safety studies (such as the
Rasmussen Report) have painstakingly attempted to identify and
characterize what
is termed a "maximum credible accident." The real concern, however,
is "What is the probability that such an accident will actually occur? The
facile confusion of possibility with probability is a fundamental error in much
of the discussion on reactor safety.
A few minutes of morbid reflection can conjure up
a legion of frightening natural or industrial disasters. A tidal wave
(or tsunami)
is not an unknown event on many open coastlines. Many thousands of people have
been drowned by them in this century alone. Is it possible that a
tsunami of unprecedented
height could strike a large coastal city somewhere and cause the death of over
a million people? The answer must be, "Yes, it is possible."
Crashes of commercial aircraft carrying several hundred passengers, while not
everyday occurrences, are not unknown. Whether these are mid-air collisions or
crashes on landing or takeoff, the result is usually a ghastly loss
of life. Casualties
are usually restricted to the passengers and crew, but persons on the
ground may,
also be victims of falling wreckage. One could conceive of an extreme case in
which a fully loaded Boeing 747 jumbo jet crashes in flames into the
packed Pasadena
Rose Bowl some New Year's Day afternoon. Fatalities could easily run to tens of
thousands with nearly all innocent bystanders.
This litany of quite conceivable disasters could go on and
on-earthquakes or volcanic
eruptions in densely populated areas, large ships suddenly capsizing,
dams collapsing,
uncontrolled fires sweeping an entire town, a tornado striking a
large city, etc.
All of these are examples of phenomena which have caused the deaths of hundreds
of thousands of people in the past. It would be folly to suggest that
such disasters
will not occur in the future. However, does the possibility of such devastating
events really dominate our thinking and affect our everyday living?
Do we forsake
all coastal areas because a tsunami could overwhelm us? Do we avoid
either flying
or being under commercial flight paths at any time? Do people really
abandon all
regions where tornados, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or floods
occur? The answer
for rational people is, "Obviously not!"
The point here is that we judge risk in such situations based on probabilities,
not possibilities. We don't ask, "Could such disasters
occur?" Instead
we inquire, "how likely is it that these disasters may happen?" The
degree of risk is associated with the probability, not the possibility
of a given
event. We can never be 100% sore that any possible disaster will not
strike. However,
the probability may be so small that our assurance greatly exceeds the claimed
purity of Ivory soap (99.44%). For all practical purposes, we usually
ignore such vanishingly small risks. Who, for example, wears a hard hat whenever venturing
outdoors for fear of being struck by a falling meteorite?
My concern is that risks from nuclear power accidents should be
reasonably viewed
from the same perspective. We could he paralyzed by irrational fears if we fail
to
apply the same logic to risk from nuclear accidents that we regularly
(if unconsciously)
apply to other hazards. There is no such thing as 100% safety. We
deceive ourselves
if we seek such assurance. Thus, the real concern regarding nuclear
power should
center on the likely as opposed to the conceivable risks. This leads
to the second
error.
2. Making Future Predictions Without Considering Past Experience
Risk determinations in any sphere are based both on actual past experience and
best estimates of the future. While the past may be known with a high degree of
certainty, future projections are always probability statements. In the early
years of any new activity or technology, there is only meager
experience on which
to base risk estimates, As experience accumulates, the probability of
making increasingly
more accurate risk predictions improves sharply.
For example, few of its would have volunteered as the first person to
use a parachute
from an airplane in flight. There was no past experience as a guide and certain
death was the penalty for parachute failure. The risks were simply too high and
the uncertainties too great. While I'm no skydiver, I wouldn't hesitate to use
a parachute now if circumstances required it. The experience of tens
of thousands
of people over several decades allows us to determine rather closely the degree
of risk from parachuting. This is not to say that parachuting is 100% safe, but
we now know that it is much closer to 100% than to 0%.
Let's apply this to hazard assessments of nuclear power. Although
nuclear reactors
still seem quite new to the public, they actually predate such familiar items
as jet planes, commercial television and transistor radios. The first nuclear
reactor was operated in Chicago on December 2, 1942. Before the end
of World War
II about a half dozen were in use for military purposes. All these
early reactors
were tinder strict government control in the U.S.A. or abroad. The
first nuclear-powered
submarine, U.S.S. Nautilus, was launched in 1954. Nuclear naval
vessels numbering
in the hundreds have been built and operated by several nations subsequently.
By the mid1950's reactors began to appear on university campuses for research
and training. The late 1950's and early 1960's saw the advent of
nuclear reactors
for generating electricity for civilian purposes. Over 100 of these
are now operated
by public or private utilities in the U.S.A. and many other nations.
In summary,
many hundreds of nuclear reactors of different types have been
operated for nearly
four decades.
What has been the actual operating experience with nuclear reactors?
If the doomsday
predictions of the nuclear opposition are to he believed, surely the
past history
must have been grim, indeed. Quite the opposite is true. The actual record is
that no civilian in the Free World has ever been killed as a direct result of
a nuclear reactor accident. (Since information from the U.S.S.R. and
other closed
societies is unavailable, this statement is necessarily qualified.)
In fact, three
military operators of an experimental U.S. Army reactor in Idaho are the only
fatalities known.6 It should be noted that they died from injuries as a result
of an explosion, not from radia
tion itself.
Have other reactor accidents occurred? One might as well ask,
"have any parachutes
ever failed to open?" The answer is obviously, "Yes."
With parachutes,
however, the margin of safety is exceedingly thin. Even a minor
malfunction commonly
results in death. By contrast, nuclear reactors have multiple and
redundant safeguard
systems. The other reactor accidents are better described as
engineering malfunctions.
They certainly could not be construed as major public disasters. A vanishingly
small death toll of three (operators, not the general public) over nearly four
decades scents amazing in light of the very real potential hazards, how do we
account for such a record? The simple answer is that engineering and operating
practices in both the military and civilian phases developed from the beginning
with unparalleled attention to safety.
It scents ironic that nuclear critics today continue to incite public
fears about
possible nuclear disasters despite this unique safety record. As we have seen,
the probable accuracy of future risk estimates improves greatly with
accumulated
experience. Nuclear power is hardly lacking in such experience. Critics appear
to be using a double standard here by insisting that, in this case,
the past has
little or no relevance to the future. It would he a strange world, indeed, if
that logic' were applied to other aspects of life.
3. But What about Three Mile island?
The reader may well wonder whether the previous comments were written
before the
Three Mile Island (TMI) plant accident. The answer is that they were penned
in the full light of that situation. The events of TMI No. 2 in the spring of
1979 are acknowledged by all parties as the worst accident in the
nation's commercial
nuclear power program. We should ask, however, "How many
fatalities or even
direct injuries resulted?" The stark answer is "None." TMI was
a disaster largely from the standpoint of economics and public
relations. It was
in no way a public hazard of the doomsday variety.
Admittedly, hundreds of nearby residents were temporarily evacuated
as a precaution
and thousands reputedly suffered "psychological trauma."
Unfortunately
most of this public impact resulted from the confusion and gross misinformation
surrounding the event. TMI might better he regarded as a regulatory and ntedia
disaster. There is more than enough blame to go around. The US.
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission appeared confused and fumbling. The utility operators (Metropolitan
Edison Co.) were frequently less than candid about the actual
situation. The news
media were much better at sensationalizing than informing. In
perspective, however,
how many people annually are evacuated from their homes because of
floods, earthquakes,
fires, leaking tank cars, etc.? How much "psychological trauma" Occur.
,,routinely from near accidents in autos and planes, news of
impending hurricanes,
tornadoes or floods, or even from horror movies?
If the TMI accident is the worst thus far in nuclear
power operations, it should give us cause for reassurance for the future rather
than unreasoning fear. Would that
coal mining, commercial aviation and railroad transportation had the
same enviable
safety record The accidents that taught us how to operate these industries with
.Some degree of safety were paid for with far grimmer statistics than
from TMI.
Although no immediate deaths resulted front the 'l'\II accident, it was widely
publicized that significant amounts of radioactivity were released to
the environment.
The reader may reasonably wonder what potential for future health hazards these
may pose. After some initial confusion, a broadscale radioactive
monitoring program
was set in motion. Water, milk, air, soil and vegetation in the surrounding
area were analyzed. The resulting data give no cause for alarm and responsible
safety authorities predict that DO measurable public health effects are to he
expected in the future. What are the bases for such predictions?
First, the releases were predominantly radioactive gases (isotopes of
xenon, krypton,
and iodine). These were discharged intermittently from a tall stack
on the reactor
site. Dilution in the atmosphere quickly reduced resulting off-site
air concentrations
to minimal levels. More importantly, xenon and krypton are in the
group of elements
known as "noble gases." This term refers to their chemical inertness
in nature. Thus, they remain as elemental gases in the environment and do not
hind with other elements to form compounds. Even if inhaled, 'they do
not accumulate
or become hound to body tissues like other elements. This greatly reduces their
degree of hazard.
Releases of iodine were of greater concern. Radioidine is readily concentrated
in the human thyroid gland following ingestion of radioactively
contaminated food
or water, The most direct route to man is through deposition of gaseous iodine
onto vegetation, its consumption by dairy cows and subsequent
appearance in their
milk. This pathway has been well characterized from studies of
fallout from nuclear
weapons testing. Milk supplies in the region surrounding the TMI
plant were carefully
monitored following the accident. Most milk showed no detectable radioiodine.
A few samples revealed indine-131 in the range of 14 to 40 pCi/l.9
How hazardous are such levels? For perspective, the most recent Chinese nuclear
test produced fallout around the northern hemisphere. This resulted
in all iodine-131
Concentration of about 300 pCi/l in milk in this area of Pennsylvania,"'
Note that this was Seven times the level from TMI. Furthermore,
levels were much
higher in the 1950's and 60's before the USA and the USSR agreed to
ban aboveground
nuclear testing. Federal safety regulations do not require that dairy cows be
removed from access to contaminated pasture until the iodine-131
levels reaches
12,000 pCi/l.9 The magnitude of these differences should offer
convincing evidence
of the negligible hazard posed by the radioiodine releases from TMI.
More impressive data bearing on this matter come from a reactor
accident at Windscale,
England, in 1957. There, the core of an air-cooled, plutonium-producing nuclear
reactor caught fire and burned for four days. An estimated 20,000 Ci
of iodine-131
were released to
the atmosphere as a result. That is 20 quadrillion pCi for
comparison. (It should
be noted that this type of reactor is not used in the USA.) The Windscale plant
is situated along the Irish Sea. Coastal winds scattered the radioactivity both
inland and southward for many miles. Health and safety personnel
carefully monitored
the milk produced in the region for radioiodine content. They initially found
iodine-131 levels exceeding 100,000 pCi/I over an area of
approximately 200 square
miles. Peak concentrations of 1,400,000 pCi/l were noted in a
restricted location
about ten miles from the reactor.6,11 Since Iodine-131 has a
radioactive half-life
of only eight days, these levels declined rapidly. The enormity of
this environmental
contamination compared to that from TMI should he evident. The health status of
individuals in the affected region in northwest England has been followed over
the 22 years since this accident. What have been the results? No
adverse health
effects on the exposed individuals have been observed to date.
The TMI incident has brought on another rash of ominous
predictions of future
'extra" cancer deaths from nuclear power critics. Most radiation
health and
safety professionals have strongly contested such predictions. The public can
be excused for being confused about such matters. This is a classic
case of what
Alvin Veinberg calls a "trans-scientific" issue.12 It is well known
that high closes of radiation may increase the incidence of cancer in
a population.
However, even the highest closes from TMI would be trivial in the extreme by
comparison. Cancer is already a leading cause of death in this country. Would
this high death rate be measurably increased by such infinitesimal
added radiation
doses from TMI?
The answer may best he seen in perspective from an analogy. Auto
fatalities arid
highway speed li,juts are well recognized to he positively correlated. higher
speed limits and average highway speeds directly result in increased fatalities
per mile driven. The federally mandated limit of 55 miles per hour imposed in
1974 is widely acknowledged as the proximal(, cause for the
subsequent sharp decline
in highway death rates, That reduction amounted to 10-15 mph from
state to state.
By contrast, what could he expected if the present 55 mph limit were increased
to 55.001 mph? (We will assume that average driving speeds increase
proportionately.)
Logically one could predict some small increase in highway death
rates. Practically
this would never he observed. Year-to-year fluctuations in traffic
death statistics
would greatly' exceed any effect of such a trivial increase in speed
limit. This
is precisely the case for predictions of increased future deaths from low-level
radiation doses from TMI or other such accidents. Any theoretical
increase would
simply be ton small to be observed. For all practical purposes it
wouldn't occur.
(Remember, there is no such thing as zero!)
Conclusions
This has obviously been a somewhat personal and only semi-technical
presentation.
Some readers may take it as a strongly pro-nuclear statement, but such is not
really my intent. Many aspects of the nuclear power controversy have been left
un-discussed either for lack of space or sufficient personal expertise. I am
altogether too aware of strong differences of opinion on this issue
both in the American Scientific Affiliation and the scientific community as a
whole. Responsible criticism is healthy and necessary'. It is,
however, difficult
to be charitable to those critics who routinely' indulge in
demagoguery and distortion.
From my necessarily limited experience there seems to be more of this
on the anti-,
than the pro- side of the discussion. My personal appraisal is that
nuclear power
is one of the best alternatives available to our nation now to meet
our electrical
power generation requirements in the near term. Hazards, while well recognized,
are quite within reason in comparison to other energy technologies.
My limited personal experience in the public aspects of this controversy has
left me with one firm conviction. The real issues are far deeper than
the technical
and safety' matters raised by the opposition. I find Richard Meehan's analysis
here to he most appropriate.
I would go so far as to say that the divisions are deeper and more bitter among
the scientifically literate than in the general public. The paradox-that the best
informed are the most confused-disappears only it we consider the whole nuclear
power issue as merely symbolic of a deeper ideological rift, comparable to,
say, the early 19th-century Romantic revolt. One might w onder
whether the whole
nuclear safety issue even makes sense in the
absence of a deeper societal conflict.. . If, as I am suggesting
here, the nuclear safety issue is score of a quasi-religions than a
technological
conflict, then widespread improvement of scientific literacy is
unlikely to improve matters.13
The insistent demands for ever higher levels of safety in nuclear power plants
leave me perplexed. In a society where very' high risk "recreation"
is increasingly popular, why' is nuclear 'power singled out to be the
only no-risk
industry? Surely' reason would suggest that we first discourage or abandon sky'
diving, hang gliding, motorcycle racing, mountaineering and downhill
skiing. This
nation has spent an estimated one billion dollars over the past 20-25
years characterizing
nuclear risks. We now know more about the health and safety aspects of ionizing
radiation than about any' other environmental hazard. flow much is
enough? Margaret
Nlaxey puts this most fittingly.
Zero risks and absolute safety are indeed costly illusions. Man does not lies'
by safety alone. The sltinmame chaltengc' is to redis
cover what else we live by.8
REFERENCES
1Wang, C. Ft., and David L. Willis. (1965) Radiotracer Methodology in
Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall. 382 p.
2Wang, C. H., David L. Willis, and Walter D. Loveland. (1975) Radio
tracer Methodology in the Biological, Environmental, and Physical Sciences. Englewood
Cliffs, Prentice-Hall. 480 p.
3Willis, David L. (1971) A Radioecological Analysis of the Impact
of Radioactive
Releases from the Trojan Nuclear Plant into the Lower Columbia River.
Corvallis.
22 p.
4
Portland General Electric Company. (1971) Trojan Nuclear Plant
Environmental Report.
Vol. 1. Portland.
5National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. (1975)
Natural Background
Radiation in the United States. Washington, D. C. (NCRP Report No.
45) 163 p.
6Eisenbud, Merril. (1973) Environmental Radioactivity. 2nd Ed. New
York Academic Press. .542 p.
7AuCoin, Les. (1979) Nuclear Power-We Can't Afford It. (A Report to
Renton County
from Congressman Les AnCoin) Washington, D.C. 2p.
8Maxey, Margaret M. (1978) "Radwastes and Public Ethics:
Issues and Imperatives."
Health Physics 34(2(129-135.
_______________
(1979) 'The Ordeal at Three Mile Island." Nuclear News Special Report. 6
p.
10Marshall Eliot. (1979) "The Radiation Studies Begin"
Science 204:281.
11Baverstock. K. F., and J. Vennart. (1976) "Emergency Reference Levels for
Reactor Accidents: A Re-examination of the Windscale Reactor
Accident." Health Physics 30(4):339-344.
12Weinherg Alvin XI. (1977) "The Limits of Science and
Trans-Science."
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 2(4):337-342.
13Nleehan, Richard L. (197) "Nuclear Safety: Is Scientific
Literacy the Answer?"
Science 204:571.