Health effects from the nuclear fuel cycle and other sources in perspective

The data base for each process of the nuclear fuel cycle has been updated as a part of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The BNL Energy System Network Simulator (ESNS) was modified to accommodate the new data, and methodology was developed for estimating population dose and health effects resulting from atmosphere releases of radioactive materials from the nuclear fuel cycle.Estimates of population dose and health effects were made using these new CONAES emission data and the new model for three scenarios out to the year 2000: (1) no reprocessing; (2) reprocessing, 1-year cooling; and (3) reprocessing, 5-year cooling. Results indicate that radon emissions from mining and milling of uranium bearing ores will have greater impacts than any other component in the open nuclear fuel cycle. The estimated number of health effects will depend, to a large extent, on the lung model mechanism assumed to induce cancer; i.e., either the smeared or the unsmeared model. The smear model and the linear relationship predict for scenario 1, 630; for scenario 2, 949; and for scenario 3, 854 lung cancers, respectively, using the new CONAES data.Epidemiologic data from six United States counties were correlated using a new statistical model (described in the text) in order to test the validity of the lung model and the linear relationship. Results do not support the high lung cancer correlations expected from the unsmear model and the linear relationship; therefore, it is concluded that low-dose mechanisms may be different from those developed from high-dose data. The best place to look for effects of low-dose radiation may be the less developed countries because of a reduction in the noise level caused by chemical pollutants.     

A MODEL FOR ACHIEVING CONSISTENCY FOR COST SHARING IN WATER RESOURCE PROGRAMS1

ABSTRACT: Three basic principles of responsibility have influenced the Federal/non-Federal cost sharing rates for water resources programs (1) full payment by beneficiaries (2) exclusive Federal assumption of costs and (3) joint Federal/non-Federal sharing. The efforts to determine appropriate cost sharing rates have resulted in several hundred complex arrangements involving contributions, user charges and direct sales based on many variations of payment terms. This basic present value model was developed to determine the non-Federal cost shares which are expected to be paid for 32 different functional purposes emanating from Federal water resources programs and projects for both implementation and OMR stages. The model introduces the concept of a composite (implementation plus OMR) cost share as a focus developing appropriate cost sharing rates for the private, public and mixed outputs produced through public water resources investments. The model can be used as a focus for policy decisions on cost sharing which seek to achieve consistent and equitable cost shares for purposes provided while maintaining an efficient allocation of resources within water programs.     

Recognizing hidden environmental and social costs and reducing ecological and societal damage through tax, price, and subsidy reform

Indirect, unpriced environmental and social costs of human activities in the United States amount to several trillion dollars each year. By accounting for these costs and shifting some of the tax burden from work to waste, it would be possible to protect the environment and benefit society and the economy.