79-14-B5: Difference between revisions
Reagan admin (talk | contribs) m (1 revision imported) |
Reagan admin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2"> | <TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2"> | ||
=== Transcript === | === Transcript === | ||
There have been some questions in the mail recently about my stand on nuclear | |||
power. Some have challenged that the problem of nuclear waste has not been solved. | |||
Others have taken the position that the very existence of nuclear plants threatens | |||
us with the dread, invisible spread of radioactivity. The things we have now | |||
learned about the harmful effects of low level radiation from the World War II | |||
bomb tests is offered as proof that nuclear electric generating plants will be an | |||
ongoing source of silent death. | |||
Well, it is true that mistakes were made in those early days of atomic testing; | |||
that there was a lack of information even among nuclear scientists. It is equally | |||
true that we now do have an enormous fund of knowledge which makes it possible to | |||
accurately appraise potential risk. | |||
When Madam Curie's discoveries led to the development of the X-ray we know | |||
there was little thought given to possible side effects. Undoubtedly there were | |||
casualties associated with X-ray use. But would anyone suggest that the X-ray | |||
has not been a boon to mankind with benefits far outweighing the unanticipated | |||
side effects? | |||
Samuel A. Wenk, research and development manager for the Southwest Research | |||
Institute, has tried to put risk and benefit in proper perspective. He says, "We | |||
live in a world of natural radiation. Everyone panics at the terms 'nuclear' | |||
and 'radiation' when it comes to power plants; in truth, however, we are getting daily | |||
doses of radiation from the sun, the ground and the buildings we live in that is | |||
10 to 20 times greater than what is put out by nuclear power plants." | |||
Wenk is peculiarly well qualified to speak of this--not alone by his scientific | |||
training. He had a skin cancer removed that was caused by too much exposure to the | |||
sun. | |||
But here is assessment of the annual natural radiation we're all exposed to. | |||
Ground level radiation from cosmic rays is about 45 millirems. If you fly an | |||
average of 10 hours a month add another 62½ millirems. The average in the United | |||
States of radiation from the ground we walk on is 60 millirems. The building materials | |||
in our homes give off 40, and in driving 10,000 miles we get an additional 4 from | |||
the paving materials used in streets and highways. That totals some 211 millerems | |||
per year. | |||
That is the equivalent of 10 chest X-rays and we haven't counted what we eat | |||
and drink. The intake from that is 25 millirems. Then Wenk says there is localized | |||
exposure. A wearer of dentures gets Alpha radiation which fortunately has limited | |||
penetration. Wearing glasses adds rems of Alpha radiation to the corneas. | |||
Cooking with natural gas exposes us to Radon, which is also found in our drinking | |||
water-there are no average figures on this. You get more Radon from taking a shower | |||
than you do if you take a bath. | |||
An efficient 1000 megawatt coal generating plant exposes the nearby population | |||
to 380 millirems a year. A nuclear power plant is restricted to less than 10 at | |||
its own fence. | |||
Anyone interested can get this information and more from the federal government's | |||
Environmental Protection Agency report: "Radiological Quality of the Environment in | |||
the U.S. - 1977." | |||
</TD> | </TD> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:39, 28 March 2026
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1979
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Radioactivity[edit]
Transcript[edit]There have been some questions in the mail recently about my stand on nuclear power. Some have challenged that the problem of nuclear waste has not been solved. Others have taken the position that the very existence of nuclear plants threatens us with the dread, invisible spread of radioactivity. The things we have now learned about the harmful effects of low level radiation from the World War II bomb tests is offered as proof that nuclear electric generating plants will be an ongoing source of silent death. Well, it is true that mistakes were made in those early days of atomic testing; that there was a lack of information even among nuclear scientists. It is equally true that we now do have an enormous fund of knowledge which makes it possible to accurately appraise potential risk. When Madam Curie's discoveries led to the development of the X-ray we know there was little thought given to possible side effects. Undoubtedly there were casualties associated with X-ray use. But would anyone suggest that the X-ray has not been a boon to mankind with benefits far outweighing the unanticipated side effects? Samuel A. Wenk, research and development manager for the Southwest Research Institute, has tried to put risk and benefit in proper perspective. He says, "We live in a world of natural radiation. Everyone panics at the terms 'nuclear' and 'radiation' when it comes to power plants; in truth, however, we are getting daily doses of radiation from the sun, the ground and the buildings we live in that is 10 to 20 times greater than what is put out by nuclear power plants." Wenk is peculiarly well qualified to speak of this--not alone by his scientific training. He had a skin cancer removed that was caused by too much exposure to the sun. But here is assessment of the annual natural radiation we're all exposed to. Ground level radiation from cosmic rays is about 45 millirems. If you fly an average of 10 hours a month add another 62½ millirems. The average in the United States of radiation from the ground we walk on is 60 millirems. The building materials in our homes give off 40, and in driving 10,000 miles we get an additional 4 from the paving materials used in streets and highways. That totals some 211 millerems per year. That is the equivalent of 10 chest X-rays and we haven't counted what we eat and drink. The intake from that is 25 millirems. Then Wenk says there is localized exposure. A wearer of dentures gets Alpha radiation which fortunately has limited penetration. Wearing glasses adds rems of Alpha radiation to the corneas. Cooking with natural gas exposes us to Radon, which is also found in our drinking water-there are no average figures on this. You get more Radon from taking a shower than you do if you take a bath. An efficient 1000 megawatt coal generating plant exposes the nearby population to 380 millirems a year. A nuclear power plant is restricted to less than 10 at its own fence. Anyone interested can get this information and more from the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency report: "Radiological Quality of the Environment in the U.S. - 1977." |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
