Radon figures in a controversy about mill tailings, discussed in our booklet on nuclear wastes (see below). But there are two other points of interest.
One is that it is now being used for earthquake predictions. There are a number of ways of predicting them, the most successful being the "gap" method. As tectonic plates meet along a fault, one slides on top of the other and stresses certain points much like an overburdened centipede with rigid feet will stress the longest feet most. When they collapse (earthquake), the next longest feet get to feel the stress, and gradually¾the centipede's feet are crunched away. One way of predicting an earthquake is to look for gaps along the fault where, judging from the absence of recent quakes, the feet must still be intact. Crude? Don't argue with success: Last year, US scientists surrounded such a gap in Oaxaca, Mexico, with seismic instruments; on November 29 their prey, with magnitude 7.8, quaked into the trap.
But there are other methods. As radon is produced by decaying uranium, it leaks into underground water and from there into the air. When the earth is disturbed, more radon leaks out through the fresh cracks. Japanese scientists measured a dramatic increase in the radon content of deep wells five days before the earthquake off the Izu peninsula in January 1978, and the entire area is now covered by a network of wells where radon levels are continuously being monitored.
There is nothing surprising about radioactivity being turned to good use. There was even a time when people thought of radioactivity as the thing that is used to cure cancer. It is still so used; but many have stopped thinking.
The other point about radon emissions in homes and offices is its treatment in the just released OTA report Residential Energy Conservation. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment has produced highly competent and impressive reports, but in this one, which runs to 355 printed pages, including a whole chapter on "Indoor Air Quality," we find the mention of radon limited to a single short sentence in the text, and one line in a table, drily mentioning enhanced risk of lung cancer and other cancers; the rating given this exposure is "may be significant."
We have three theories why the authors paid so little attention to this most abundant of radiation sources encountered by the average citizen.
1) The DoE, with its 20,000 employees, did not have any people available to tell them; 2) with a budget of $10 billion they could not afford it; 3) low level radiation is not a subject that interests the public, the media, the government, or anybody else.
Any other theories?
|
|
Vol. 7, No. 1
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Volume 7 Issue/No.: Vol. 7, No. 1 Date: September 01, 1979 10:13 AM Title: Standing up to the brainwashers
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|