why, after all this time living in the shadow of the nuclear facilities, is the stockpiling of potassium iodide considered politically correct?

as we discussed before there are many dots, some are obvious and some are not so obvious. every dot has it's own group and within that group...subgroups, within these subgroups are more subgroups and on and on.

the dot's we discussed before referred to the complex interconnectivity of the power industry to the fuel industry, the telecommunication industry, etc.

there are other dot's that bear connecting...i call these the 'what's *really* going on here dots.' at first blush there does not appear to be any obvious connection between a medicine dot and a nuclear facility[this is, of course, barring any accidents] but now there is one...it is in the preventative medicine subgroup. makes sense at first, but then we, as curious folk, say why?

we now have several other dots to connect to...Y2k,the timing on this is eerily coincidental or the terrorism dot with it's subgroups of different organizations that have an 'axe' to grind.

read the article:

harrisburg(AP)

a pill that helps block the human body's absorption of radioactive iodine may soon be distributed to residents living near nuclear power plants, under a plan being reviewed by federal and state health officials.

at issue are questions of the pills' cost and effectiveness as well as fears that those who use them will be lulled into a false sense of security about the risk of nuclear radiation.[fat chance of that happening.]

"we don't want people to get the idea that potassium iodide somehow protects them from radiation in general," said dr. william kirk, director of the state department of environmental protection's bureau of radioactive protection[there's an oxymoron if i ever heard one.]

the pills, if taken within an hour or two before or after exposure, saturate the thyroid gland with iodine, preventing the gland from absorbing radioactive iodine in the blood. the thyroid uses iodine to produce hormones crucial to some bodily functions.

studies conducted after the explosion at russia's chernobyl nuclear plant found a significant increase in thyroid cancer, especially in children.

pennsylvania currently stockpiles the pills only for use by emergency workers living in the eleven counties surrounding TMI in middletown and the state's four other nuclear power plants. these counties include lebanon, dauphin, and lancaster.

but the federal nuclear regulatory commission has said that it may require distribution of the pills to the public, prompting some states, including pennsylvania, to re-evaluate their policies. if approved by the nrc, the pills would become the third component in a response plan that also includes evacuation and shelter, the agency said.

"my own personal opinion...is that evacuation is the best way to go, but if the public wants potassium pills i think they should be made available[now it's the publics idea...starting to see how this works?]said dr. kenneth miller, director of the division of health physics at hershey medical center.

miller is chairing a panel of experts from the state departments of health and environmental protection[there's that oxymoron again]which has benn reviewing the plan for the last several months[hmmmmmmm...a time line, wonder which dot precipitated this project?] on tuesday, the panel will hear a report recommending ways to gather public input on the issue, he said [i would suggest asking them, but why do that? let's have a long drawn out study.]

harrisburg mayor stephen r. reed has said he will seek enough potassium iodide pills for all city residents. but earlier this year the city had supplies for only 250 emergency workers, because the nrc withdrew an offer to pay the estimated $300,000 to $3,000,000 cost, he said.

the expense of providing the pills would be recurring since the medicine has a shelf life estimated by various groups at one to three years[they can't even agree on this. now in my mind, in a basic chemistry class, they should be able to determine shelf life...we can do it for corn flakes.]

-- Anonymous, May 26, 1999

Answers

If someone showed up at my door with a bottle of iodine pills, I'd tell him to give them to my neighbor as I was heading for my car to leave the state. I read an IEA (International Energy Association) document today that spoke of real Nuke problems occurring in Finland? But it kind of flew in the face of the stuff we've been hearing from our own Nuke sources. At this point, I don't trust the system. When they start handing out iodine, I'm gone. Bye, bye.

Your link got me to thinking, as I used to live in Lancaster County which is not all that far from the "green glowing hills" of TMI. Anyway, I wanted to know where my current risks are in terms of Nukes, so I went to the EIA's site and found great state by state profiles, most of which have maps which show where the nukes are in your state. Here's the link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/toc.html

-- Anonymous, May 26, 1999

jim,

if you click on pa you will note that i am surrounded by nukes...literally! this gives me an inordinate preoccupation with a no nonsense, do not leave them up for expediencies sake, approach to the nukes.

man has created a medium that he can't control after a point. it was nothing short of a miracle that TMI didn't do a total melt. the stakes are too high to have a tiger by the tail during y2k.

the nrc is vacillating and succumbing to political/economic pressure to keep them up. that little analysis that rick posted here not too long ago referenced that there was only 5% to 7% interest in the nuke audits and a 11% request for the page on nuclear...they are testing the water, crunching the numbers, trying to determine the political heat[if any] they will endure if they decide to leave them up and running.

it is all about economics...not the risk to life and land.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 1999

I participated in the meeting in Hershey PA on Tuesday. Y2K is not responsible for the timing of KI. An NRC attorney acting as a private citizen who pressured the NRC is responsible. The NRC claims lessons learned from Chernobyl prompted the NRC to keep a promise it made 20 years ago.

KI will not be ready for Y2K at least in PA.

Three states already distribute or stockpile KI.

The PA KI working group seems to favor predistribution and stockpiling. The biggest opposition came from PEMA (PA Emergency Management Agency.)

KI is available on the internet for $20 for a 14 day supply. Actual cost is only $1 dollar so profiteering is on the high side.

Public over-reaction to the KI issue can influence officials to drop the subject and leave us hanging. No one should pretend that KI distribution means another accident is going to occur. We already know that according to NRC probability assessments of accidents occuring, indicate we are past due for another accident. The NRC even had the audacity to state that an accident was due after TMI melted. So do you want KI or not? You should have already left town from the probability alone.

Please don't turn the KI issue into a campaign to smear the NRC and industry when KI can save residents the loss of their thyroid gland. There are plenty of other issues that completely destroy the NRC's credibility.

I am not an industry apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but i recognize that KI will help some people. Ask the children of Chernobylwho sport the "Belarus necklace" -- scars from thyroid operations.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 1999

Agree that government talk of distributing iodine pills to (millions? of) residents is a disconcerting datapoint in light of current Y2K concerns over nuclear safety. My question is actually much more basic. What is involved in safe shut down of a nuclear power plant? My current understanding is that 5 months of powered cooling is neccessary. As an aside, what happens if this process is interuppted at various points, or does not occur at all? Is it an all or nothing process? Will the fissionable material be consumed in a short amount of time if cooling is lost. Does the concrete containment provide any reasonable margin of safety? From reading NERC reports and other sources one area of concern is reliability of back-up generators to provide cooling in the event of loss of grid power. One area, I am very unclear on is, does the back-up generator, provide the primary power during a shutdown or does the plant's own production capacity serve as the first means of cooling the plant. In other words why does the plant need to send power out to the grid only to draw it back for safe shutdown? The one value I've seen quoted, and I can't remember where, was a back-up generator with a production capacity of around, I believe, 4.4 Megawatts used for cooling. It would seem trivial from an engineering standpoint to shunt 4 MW of power from a nuclear power plant's endogenous production capacity to power cooling procedures. Especially when the problem is the plant running too hot. Doubt this would require any form of islanding and could be isolated from the grid without islanding the whole plant. Is this standard operating procedure while a back-up generator starts up if the plant is unable to cool on its own. In case you haven't noticed so far, I am not an engineer. I'm an intern, with no plans to go into otolarygology (Ear Nose and Throat). Any remedial info anyone could provide to help get me upto speed is much appreciated.

--Paul (PaulDMaher@worldnet.att)

-- Anonymous, May 27, 1999