BUT THERE'S MORE

I have no objection to Holloway's analysis as far as it goes, but I think it can be carried one or two steps further. As it stands, the two curves show that for the first 500 years, the fission products (from a 1 MW fuel rod or 2E23 atoms of uranium 235) radiate more strongly than the unmined uranium, and though the antinukes always have their mouths full of future generations, they might scoff at the idea of having to wait 500 years.

But Holloway's calculation does not take account of two factors. First, there is no way of mining U 235 by itself, for it is a tiny percentage (0.7%) of "uranium," the remaining 99.3% being U 238, which also includes radon in its decay chain, and which also has to be secured against radon emanations after it is mined. Thus the "cleansed" (or secured) amount of uranium is 99.3/0.7 = 142 times larger than that of merely the 235, and we can shift the uranium curve up by one and a half orders to the dashed curve in the figure. Since the fission product decay curve in that part is very steep, that does not make much difference, and I won't quibble about it (especially since I am not all that sure whether this is per-haps not already included in Holloway's calculation).

However, Holloway's curve also implies that the dose from un-mined uranium is delivered in the same way as from fission products. But that is not so, of course. Natural uranium is not protected from seeping into the ground water or from being dis-turbed by somebody who digs a shallow hole into the ground, and both happen quite regularly. To the contrary, fission products are disposed of some 1500 ft or more below ground, well below the water table, in special containers, and subject to provisions which would be absurdly zealous if they were meant to improve safety; but they are, of course, only meant to allay the superstitions of Con-gress and to overcome the abhorrence of people near Yucca Moun-tain, Nevada. The ratio of the two cases can be calculated, though it would be time-consuming to search for the data (anyone wishing to try should start with Prof. Bernard Cohen's numerous papers on related subjects).

The ratio of the two (for example, in terms of the fatal cancers produced by the fission products when left around as carelessly as by nature vs. properly disposed of) would surely be enormous, and the curve would have to be raised by the corresponding amount in addition.

It is my uncalculated guess that it would shift the crossing point to months or weeks, and possibly even less.

WHY YOU CAN'T SOAK THE RICH

In 1986 (my latest available year), the total income tax revenue was $300 billion, of which those making $1,000,000 or more paid $33 billion, or a mere 11% of the total. Because they are shirking taxes? No: the average rate on their income was 41.0, far above the rates for lesser incomes. The reason why you can't soak the rich is simple: there isn't enough of them (36,000 out of 103,000,000 tax-payers).

So is the call to soak them due to malice or stupidity? Hard to say, but from Sen. Gephardt's low forehead and sullen expression I get the impression that malice is not his problem.

The people who fall for this primitive politicians' ploy are those whose wits do not stretch far enough to ask "Where does most of it come from?"

And that includes the Congressmen and EPAcrats. It cost mil-lions of dollars to mandate oxygenated fuels that were supposed to suppress carbon monoxide emissions in the high country, in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. They are said to damage vehicle components and definitely do reduce mileage, yet a more effective way at about 1/20 the cost would have been available had the politicians asked the magic question above. Here the op-posite of soaking the rich is true: it is a few dirty cars (about 10%) that cause half the pollution.

And all they usually need is a tuneup.

This was established by Donald H. Stedman, professor of chemistry at the University of Denver, who built an instrument that measures pollution of cars not only individually, but above all (by remote sensing) as they travel on the road.

Let's take a look at how he does it.