I have uploaded the second try at the release package documentation to
gordianknotbook.com/download/draft_compensation_pamphlet .
This version splits the old pamphlet into two pamphlets:
1) Instructions for what to do in a release and an explanation of the release compensation package.
2) A separate pamphlet explaining radiation damage and repair.
For editing purposes, I have also included the cover letter in the PDF. The revised cover letter is also attached below. Note the potassium-iodide pills have been dropped. Comments solicited.
Thanks to the choir, this version is a big improvement over the first try, I particularly want to thank Ken Chaplin, Joe Lassiter, Steve Verhey, and Marcia Young for their careful reading and contributions.
At the same time, I reject the counsel of despair that says people are too stupid to handle the truth. That's certainly not my experience. The problem is a regulatory system that results in a humanity crippling misallocation of resources. That's what must be changed. So now the focus changes to an installation manual on Underwriter Certification aimed at law makers and their staff. Stay tuned.
Dear Neighbor,
This is your [Ourtown] plant radiation release package. It should contain
1) a dosimeter,
2) a [20] pack of N95 masks,
3) a pamphlet with instructions for what to do if we do have a release, and an explanation of the release compensation program.
4) a pamphlet explaining radiation for those who want to learn more about radiation damage and our bodies' ability to repair that damage.
If anything is missing or you have questions or you have children younger than ten in the house, please contact [1-nnn-nnn-nnnn]. We will be happy to send you child size masks. You can also arrange a tour of the plant at that number for your family.
Your neighbors that work at [Ourtown] plant are working hard to make a release very unlikely. But that does not mean it cannot happen. Based on past performance of the industry as a whole --- which we are determined to better --- there will be 1 release every 4000 reactor-years. Using this pessimistic number, there is a 1 in 100 chance, [Ourtown] will experience a release in the next 40 years. So while the likelihood of a release is small, we need to be prepared.
If we are prepared, we can handle a release. A release need not be harmful. Radiation is part of our natural environment. Our bodies know how to handle it. It takes a very large amount of radiation over a short period to cause a medical problem. No member of the public was detectably harmed by radiation in the releases at Three Mile Island and Fukushima. The only detectable radiation harm to the public after Chernobyl was to kids who drank contaminated milk. We will prevent that.
In all the releases to date, essentially all the harm to the public was caused by ill advised evacuations, and the unwarranted fear that drove those evacuations. If we properly prepare ourselves, we can avoid turning an easily manageable disturbance into a community shattering disruption.
Please read the pamphlets. If you have any questions, you can call the above number, or go to our web site, [www.ourtown.net], and send us a message.
Sincerely,
Your neighbors at [Ourtown] power plant
In Uwcert Package V2, page 6, has a statement "Under the Atomic Energy Act of 2025, anyone who
has been exposed to radiation from a nuclear power plant release is entitled to compensation."
The actual federal law governing insurance (and details) for nuclear power plants is the Price-Anderson Act. It is the CURRENT LAW, and as such it must be modified, disappeared, or incorporated into a revised Atomic Energy Act. The current P-A Act (briefly) "provides a system of financial protection for persons who may be liable and persons who may be injured by a nuclear incident."
I'm not suggesting anything needs to change in any pamphlets today. Rather it is part of the change process to implement Underwriter Certification. You can't have two different federal laws addressing insurance, with different requirements. I'm suggesting the general discussions on this subject need to acknowledge that the P-A Act is really the current controlling federal law on this issue.
To this scientifically educated layman, this seems pretty decent as a starting point. I have no real appreciation of how many people or how much work was needed to achieve this (as a document; granting many people developed the background science). In the spirit of constructive feedback:
1) do you presume the air quality is uniform inside a building area with a common ventilation system? Granting that sometimes interior spaces might be more protective than rooms with exterior walls.
2) once the plume "phase" is past, would being in a higher building level provide greater distance/ protection from "ground shine"? Whereas it appears it might be more exposed during the plume exposure stage? I suppose thereafter the dust or other contaminated material might also deposit on the building exterior so "ground shine" could become "building shine"? Thus the desire for natural rain flushing or explicit "fire hosing'?
3) You might want to think about a 4 or 6 page fold out flyer type brochure, with possibly even more graphics on plume and ground shine ideas, etc. This is a fair amount of verbiage for the nontechnical person to consume.
4) I suspect the discussion of "insurance payouts" could be bolstered with a low, medium, high payment type payout situation/ case? The discussion of the stay at home and not go to work, vs. going to work and getting "double" pay (or salary + insurance, which may not be equal?) was a little confusing or at least incomplete. Many questions of a practical nature for employees and for businesses and employers probably need further consideration. Covid showed there were few "non-essential jobs" in our complex market and society. But a shorter term shut down with appropriate unemployment compensation schemes seems manageable. Possibly also rotating staff into work vs. letting them stay home, over a 3 week period might "share the pain" and keep a business alive that might otherwise fail.
5) hopefully you are also considering aspects of a media release package of some sort, presuming the media behave themselves and don't misinform as much as educate, pushing their own agendas. But most folks will learn what they need to do or should do via the media (if it is up and running in some form?)
[I need to be careful I am not trying to make "better the enemy of good enough", but maybe some of the above is helpful :-) ]