]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE CLEVELAND QUACKS [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
"Dr Jason Chao, a family physician in Cleveland," reports the
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER of 06/01/83, "testified that the [nuclear
Perry] plant should not be allowed to go on line because scientists
were re-evaluating dangers of low-level radiation to people and the
environment. The NRC safety standards, Choa said, permit low-level
radiation of up to 170 millirems. He said 170 millirems would equal
the amount of radiation humans absorb from natural sources, such as
solar and cosmic rays and medical X-rays.
"Chao said the standard was unacceptable because it was derived
from data that scientists say paints a different picture....
"'It's more of a leap into the dark than something over which we
have control,' said Dr James Gitlin, an allergist from Rocky River who
opposes licensing of Perry...
"[Federal Atomic Safety and] Licensing Board chairman Peter R.
Bloch said... construction could only be halted if opponents found
something wrong that couldn't be fixed."
OK. Now in a moment I will ask you to look at this item with the
eyes of a journalist with only a layman's knowledge of radiology and
health physics.
Just like you (if you are a layman), he does not have to know
that these alleged doctors are spewing garbage: They most likely mean
170 millirems PER YEAR, but even so, the NRC allows only 10 mrem/year
in theory, and 5 mrem/year in practice -- on the BOUNDARY LINE of a
plant, for a person standing on the gate naked 24 hours a day, 365
days a year. What the other Americans get on an average from all the
plants in the country is 0.03 mrems/year, and what the BEIR Committee
of the National Academy of Sciences recommends is not more than 500
mrem/year. The average annual dose to US residents is indeed close to
170 mrem, of which normally more than half comes from Mother Nature,
and most of the rest is accounted for by the medical profession. The
contribution of nuclear plant emissions is well under 1%.
All right, they don't have to know all that, but how come they
take a family physician's and an allergist's word for it? Would they
listen if a physicist counseled against removal of an appendix on the
grounds that heart surgery should not be attempted in patients older
than 3 miles?
But the sins of the newspapermen go deeper. If low-level radio-
activity might really be dangerous, what about the fossil-fired plants
which deliver up to 50 times higher radioactive doses? What about the
Houses of Congress (granite!) which could never be licensed as reac-
tors because they are too radioactive? What about the blood circu-
lating in the alleged doctors Chao and Gitlin's veins? It delivers an
internal dose (potassium 40!) 5 times as high as the NRC allows on the
boundary of a nuclear plant. We are now not talking physics, but plain
down-to-earth consistency. They didn't know? Maybe not; but a compe-
tent journalist would have asked.
And their sins go deper still. The biggest radioactive hazard in
the environment (not necessarily dangerous, but still the biggest)
comes from radon in energy-efficient (and usually poorly ventilated)
homes. If they print stories about 5 or 170 mrem, how come they men-
tion nothing about the 5,000 rems and more in Maine homes? They do not
need a physics Ph.D.; but there ARE journalists who read other news-
papers than their own. Some of them have been known to read maga-zines
and even books. [Try "The Radiation Bogey," $2 from Golem Press, Box
1342, Boulder, CO 80306.]
And the final sin: If a physicist's testimony confuses heart and
appendix in patients 3 miles old, to whom does a reporter go for a
counteropinion, to a physician or a bureaucrat? But when a doctor
talks about "natural sources of radioactivity such as solar and cosmic
rays and medical X-rays," these "journalists" go to a bureaucrat, and
print his tiresome legalistic technicalities.
So much for the journalists. As for the alleged doctors Chao and
Gitlin, I would not trust them with a sick chicken, let alone a sick
child.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page