Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

131
RISK PERSPECTIVES
Draft p. 3.1.41, 64-74--We note with considerable interest the following: Each year
55,000 persons lose their lives on highways. Although tragic to families, this does "not
represent a significant societal loss to a population of 200,000,000." On conservative
bases and even at relatively imprecise levels of knowledge, the annual loss of life from a
waste repository will be "a small fraction of one." (emphasis added). We agree completely
with this analysis. But one must then ask why waste disposal has not been put in proper
perspective. The risk associated with the disposal of nuclear waste has been exaggerated
out of all proportion-by many orders of magnitude. DOE should come right out and state this
obvious fact. (154)
Draft p. 3.1.65--The relative toxicity of plutonium and lead should be more widely pro-
mulgated. Although it does not mean that concern for plutonium be reduced, it does put the
problem in better perspective. (32)
The statements which point out the advantage radioactive wastes have over toxic chemi-
cals should be emphasized. (166)
Draft p. 1.16, Table 1.3--This comparison is superfluous and misleading. (30)
Draft p. 1.16, Table 1.3--Comparison of lethal doses from a postulated all nuclear
economy is absurd. This number should be reduced. (147)
Draft pp. 1.16--There appears inappropriate comparisons of the lethal doses from a
variety of toxic materials and lives lost in auto accidents with deaths caused by nuclear
waste disposal. The real question is whether a considerable area of water shed will be con-
taminated. (40)
Draft p. 1.16--The fact that we run a greater risk of lethal contamination from the
environmental presence of arsenic or cyanide than from high-level radioactive wastes will
not assuage the public's concern over the safe disposal of these wastes. (41, 170)
Draft p. 1.16--Your figures are misleading because some of the chemicals cited are not
lethal if diluted; others are not lethal when in certain chemical compounds. (128)
Draft p. 1.16--The statement is made that--"The conclusion is that the available
lethal doses in radioactive wastes are far less than the available lethal doses in toxic
nonradioactive chemicals now being handled routinely by society as shown in Table 1.3."
Chlorine, phosgene, and ammonia are unstable in contact with the atmosphere and consequently
do not persist in their uncombined state. Inclusion of these substances in that table
negates its credibility. Radioactivity, of all types and in all forms, leaves a persistent
trace in cell structures and its ambient strength is eternal relative to the human span of
life. The listed chemicals combine with other elements and become harmless. (144)
Draft p. 1.16--The statement--"Radioactive wastes decay with time whereas toxic chem-
icals have no half-lives and hence their quantities remain unchanged with time."--seems also
to be a distortion of the nuclear question in that it equates chemical toxicity with radio-
activity. As I understand it, they are two separate phenomena. (145)