understanding radiation in our world

UNDERSTANDINGRADIATION

IN OUR WORLD


IN OUR WORLD

A COMPANION GUIDE FOR TEACHERSA COMPANION GUIDE FOR TEACHERS

National Safety Council’s Environmental Health Center1025 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20036202/293-2270

http://www.nsc.org/ehc.htm


IN OUR WORLD


IN OUR WORLD

A COMPANION GUIDE FOR TEACHERSA COMPANION GUIDE FOR TEACHERS

A Publication of the National Safety Council’s Environmental Health Center

1025 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200Washington, DC 20036

This document was produced with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyunder cooperative agreement no. 82486201. The contents of this document do not neces-sarily reflect that agency’s views or policies.

Permission to reproduce portion of this guidebook is granted with use of the accompanyingcredit line: “Reproduced from Understanding Radiation in Our World: A CompanionGuide for Teachers, with permission from the Environmental Heath Center of the NationalSafety Council.”

For information on ordering additional copies of this guide or copies of the supplementalmaterials, please visit the Environmental Health Center website:http://www.nsc.org/ehc/rad.htm or call 202/293-2270.

Printed on recycled paper.

Part I: Activities for Each Chapter of Understanding Radiation in Our World

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Activities for Chapter 1:

What is the Nature of Radiation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11


Where Does Radiation Come From? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15


What are the Benefits and Risks of Ionizing Radiation? . . . . . . . . . . . .17


How Are Radioactive Wastes Managed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21


How is the Public Protected from Radiation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Part II. Risk Analysis Lesson Plan

Introduction (with list of handouts and overheads) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

A. What is Risk? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B. Calculating Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

C. Radiation and Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

D. Making Decisions Based Upon Calculation of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

E. Risk Analysis Culminating Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

F. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix A: Additional Suggestions for Classroom Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix B: Examples of Careers that Involve the Use of Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table of Contents

U n d e r s t a n d i n g R a d i a t i o n I n O u r Wo r l d - A Companion Guide for Teachers

5

Part I:Activities for Each

Chapter inUnderstanding Radiation

in Our World

This document is intended to serve as a class-room companion guide to the National SafetyCouncil’s book, Understanding Radiation in OurWorld. The science content is targeted at grades9-12, although many of the classroom resourcesincluded could be adapted to lower grades.

This companion guide is designed to mirror thecontent of the chapters in the book,Understanding Radiation in Our World. For eachchapter in the book, we have identified lessonplans/classroom activities that correspond to thetopics in the chapter and that are available toany educator via the world-wide web. For chap-ter three, “What are the Benefits and Risks ofIonizing Radiation?,” we have designed an origi-nal curriculum piece on risk analysis. This isthe only part of the companion guide that isintended to be followed in a step by stepsequence of instruction.

The remainder of the guide is intended forteachers to pick and choose the resources thatare most suitable for their instructional objec-tives in teaching about radiation topics. Thecompanion guide is designed to reflect this pur-pose. Each chapter in the book, UnderstandingRadiation in Our World, has a correspondingthree-part section in the companion guide. Thethree parts are:

1. Chapter Contents: This is a copy of thetable of contents for each chapter in thebook. Teachers can refer to this to identifywhere they can find information in thebook to help them prepare for the topicsthey plan to teach, as well as to identifywhere they might find lesson plans relatedto those topics.

2. Lesson Plans and Activities: This is a listof web sites and a description of the lessonplans and other classroom resources theycontain that correspond to the topics in thechapter.

3. National Content Standards: This is a listof 9-12 science education standards thatdescribe the key scientific learning goalsthat correspond to the topics in the chap-ter. The standard statements are takenfrom the following national standards documents:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS)Benchmarks for Science Literacy

• National Research Council’s National Science Education Standards (NSES)

A note on teaching the standards...

In teaching about radiation, we encourageteachers to select learning goals from thesenational content standards. Upon selecting alearning goal, the teacher can tailor the lessonplans suggested in this guide to help studentslearn these important ideas.

In writing our curriculum piece on risk analysis,we have made an attempt to align instructionwith learning goals defined from the nationalstandards. Nevertheless, it is important thatteachers use this curriculum piece and any oth-ers with a mind to improve upon it by inventingnew strategies to align instruction with learninggoals. We invite feedback on any strategies youuse or revisions you make to improve upon ourcurriculum piece or any others in this guide(email to [email protected]).

Introduction


9

1Activities for Chapter 1 of Understanding Radiation in Our World:

What is the Nature of Radiation?


11

Chapter Contents

EnergyTypes of Radiation

Nonionizing RadiationIonizing Radiation

Radioactive Decay

Half-life

Types and Sources of Ionizing Radiation

Lesson Plans and Activities

A. The ABC’s of Nuclear Science;Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratoryand the Contemporary Physics EducationProject. http://www.lbl.gov/abc

The “ABC’s of Nuclear Science” is a brief intro-duction to Nuclear Science. It includes a“Nuclear Science Wall Chart,” a “Teacher’sGuide to the Nuclear Science Wall Chart,” andnine experiments. (Note: a copy of the WallChart is included in this Understanding Radiation kit.)

1. The Inverse Square: Students explore andcalculate the relationship (if any) betweenthe distance from radioactive sources andthe intensity of beta radiation.

2. Alpha Please Leave Home: The purpose ofthis experiment is to find the range ofalpha particles and determine if the inversesquare law applies.

3. Stop That Gamma: The purpose of thisexperiment is to find the range of gammarays and determine if the inverse squarelaw applies.

4. Penetrating Power: The purpose of this

experiment is to demonstrate the interac-tions of alpha, beta, and gamma radiationwith matter.

5. Radiography: Students investigate theintensity of beta particles on photographicfilm.

6. Half-life: Students determine the half-lifeof Barium-137m.

7. Magnetic Deflection of Beta Rays: Studentsdeflect the path of beta radiation by meansof magnetism.

8. Radiation Makes House Calls: The purposeof this experiment is to demonstrate to thestudent that some household items areradioactive.

9. It’s In The Clouds: Students create conden-sation trails in a cloud chamber which areevidence of the passage of alpha particles.

B. Maths300; Curriculum Corporation,Victoria, Austrailiahttp://www.curriculum.edu.au/maths300/download/m300bits/007pradi.htm

Maths300 is a web-based service that aims tosupport teachers in the delivery of excellentmathematics education. This lesson addressesradioactive waste and the concept of a half-lifeand exponential decay functions. All radioac-tive material is described in terms of its half-life.In this activity students ‘pretend’ to be uraniumatoms and model the decay process. A comput-er simulation then provides an investigativetool to explore the underlying concepts of ‘half-life’ and exponential decay. Students discoverjust how long some of this material can stay inthe environment.

Activities forUnderstanding

Radiation inOur World

Chapter 1

1


12

C. On-line Technical Training Classroom;Institute for Energy and EnvironmentalResearch

http://www.ieer.org/clssroom/index.html

The Institute for Energy and EnvironmentalResearch’s (IEER) on-line technical trainingclassroom is designed to give you answers tosome basic questions concerning nuclear issueswithout all the jargon. Worksheets accompanymost of the following mini-lessons:

1. Avoiding Conversion Aversion: Conversion ofFamiliar Units

2. All About Prefixes: No, the “nano” and the“pico” were not two ships sailed byColumbus!

3. I’ve Got Logarithms...Who Could Ask forAnything More?: Reading a logarithmicscale.

4. Why not just write “.000000000000000000001?”: All about ScientificNotation

5. Pull up a Chair (or a Web Browser) to thePeriodic Table!: Choose your favorite on-line periodic table and click away! (You canalso view a periodic at http://www.ieer.org/periodic.gif)

6. Putting it All Together: Factsheet on theBasics of Nuclear Physics and Fission

7. Jargon, Jargon, Jargon!: An Egghead’sGlossary of Nuclear Terms

8. Yet More Jargon!: Glossary of Radiation-Related Terms

9. Einsteinium was a Germanium who worked inAmericium: Those Confusing ChemicalElement Names and their Symbols

10. Low-level waste, high-level waste...what doesit all mean?: Classifications of RadioactiveWaste

11. Afraid to Ask what a Fast Breeder ReactorDoes?: Summary and Basic Characteristicsof Nuclear Reactors.

12. The Rest of the Reactor Story: Table ofReactor Accidents

13. Plutonium Properties: Sorry, these don’trefer to the waterfront variety, but they arestill valuable

14. One Kind of Yellowcake Betty Crocker NeverMade: Uses and Hazards of Uranium

15. Gray is not just a color and Rem is not only a

rock group: Measuring Radiation: Termsand Units

16. Scintillating!: Measuring Radiation: Devicesand Methods

D. Lesson Plan for Teachers: NuclearEnergy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/LES-SON/905.html

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)has an instructional website with five units.The first unit is called Radiation and is designedaround three activities:

1. The Cloud Chamber: While radiation can-not be seen, the cloud chamber allows youto see the tracks it leaves in a dense gas.

2. Using a Geiger Counter to answer the ques-tion: How radioactive are different materials?

3. Personal Radiation Dose: Students calculatetheir annual exposure to radiation.

E. Science, Society, and America’s NuclearWaste; U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.rw.doe.gov/progdocs/edresource/unit_2_toc/unit_2_toc.htm

Department Of Energy’s Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)has a resource curriculum called “Science,Society, and America’s Nuclear Waste,” whichconsists of four units. The second unit focuseson the topic of ionizing radiation and includesthe following lesson plans:

1. The Cloud Chamber2. Ionizing Radiation: Sources and Exposures3. Pennium-1234. Half-Lives5. Atoms and Isotopes Review6. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation7. Radioactive Decay Series8. Some Important Transitions in Spent Fuel9. Hazards of Some Isotopes in Spent Fuel

Compared to the Hazard of Uranium Ore

F. Activities For Teaching FundamentalConcepts of Nuclear Energy and RelatedTopics; Amarillo National Resource Centerfor Plutonium

http://208.200.37.252/pdf/A00163.pdf

Activities forUnderstandingRadiation inOur World

Chapter 1

1

13


“Activities For Teaching FundamentalConcepts of Nuclear Energy and RelatedTopics” is a collection of activities designed toassist middle school teachers in introducinginto their classrooms topics relating to atomicstructure, radioactivity, nuclear reactions,nuclear wastes, the environment and environ-mental recovery. Many of the activities can beeasily adapted to high school level. The activi-ties are arranged by general topic.

Activities that involve Radiation Topics include:

1. Student Radiation Survey2. Adult Radiation Survey3. Data Analysis4. What is radiation?5. Seeing the Invisible (Cloud Chamber)6. How Do We Recognize Radiation?7. Personal Radiation8. UV Light and Mutations9. Mutations and UV Light I10. Mutations and UV Light II

Activities that relate to Atomic Structureinclude:11. Background for Isotopes12. Composition of Atoms13. Isotopes I14. Isotopes II

Activities that relate to Radioactivity include:15. Background for Radioactivity16. Time Line for Radioactivity Discoveries17. Time Line Jeopardy18. Preparing a Special Edition of a Newspaper19. Reading and Writing Nuclear Chemistry20. Alpha Decay21. Beta Decay22. Radioactive Decay23. Radioactive Shielding24. Half Life I25. Half Life II

National Content Standards

The nucleus of a radioactive isotope is unstableand spontaneously decays, emitting particlesand/or wavelike radiation. It cannot be predict-ed exactly when, if ever, an unstable nucleuswill decay, but a large group of identical nucleidecay at a predictable rate. This predictabilityof decay rate allows radioactivity to be used for

estimating the age of materials that containradioactive substances. (AAAS, 80)

Energy is released whenever the nuclei of veryheavy atoms, such as uranium or plutonium,split into middleweight ones, or when very lightnuclei, such as those of hydrogen and helium,combine into heavier ones. The energy releasedin each nuclear reaction is very much greaterthan the energy given off in each chemicalreaction. (AAAS, 86)

The nuclear forces that hold the nucleus of anatom together, at nuclear distances, are usuallystronger than the electric forces that wouldmake it fly apart. Nuclear reactions convert afraction of the mass of interacting particles intoenergy, and they can release much greateramounts of energy than atomic interactions.Fission is the splitting of a large nucleus intosmaller pieces. Fusion is the joining of twonuclei at extremely high temperature and pres-sure, and is the process responsible for the ener-gy of the sun and other stars. (NSES, 178)



Chapter 1

2Activities for Chapter 2 of Understanding Radiation in Our World:Where Does Radiation Come From?


15



Chapter 2

Chapter Contents

Sources of Ionizing RadiationNatural and Manmade RadiationMeasuring Radiation ExposureManmade Sources

Sources of Nonionizing RadiationHazards of Nonionizing RadiationElectric and Magnetic FieldsRadio-Frequency (RF) and Cellular Phones


A. Control the Nuclear Power Plant;Dept. of Computer and InformationScience, Linköping Universityhttp://www.ida.liu.se/~her/npp/description.html

This site, called “Control the Nuclear PowerPlant,” uses an applet program (a programdesigned to be executed from within anotherapplication) to provide a rough simulation of anuclear power plant and its safety systems. Thispower plant consists of three major components:the reactor, turbine, and condenser. Additionally,there are three pumps, four valves, and one tur-bine. The reactor boils the water and the steamgenerated drives the turbine. After the turbine,the condenser cools the steam. In turn, externalcooling water cools the condenser. The coolingpumps transport the water from the condensertank back to the reactor tank. The simulator calculates values for reactor-tankpressure, condenser-tank pressure, water levels,and so on, and displays them graphically. Whencomponents fail, the simulator calculates anddisplays the consequences for the power plantsystem. For instance, if a cooling pump fails andthe corresponding valve is not closed, water mayflow backwards from the reactor tank to the

condenser tank. This process will then drain thereactor tank and expose the reactor core.

B. Solar Lesson Plan; The Why Files,University of Wisconsin

Why Files (an online resource for students andteachers that explores the science behind cur-rent news) has a lesson plan on solar energywhich includes the following activities relatedto solar radiation: 1. Build a device to measure solar radiation 2. Collect data on solar radiation in your

locale with your device 3. Discover the effect that certain variables

have on solar radiation 4. Compare data on solar radiation with that

collected at a distant site

http://whyfiles.org/004antarctic/teacher4/solar.html

C. Learn Not to Burn; Center for Researchon Parallel Computation, Rice Universityhttp://www.crpc.rice.edu/CRPC/GT/lee/burnlesson.html

In this lesson on the effects and health risks ofsolar radiation, students:1. Observe the effect of different filter thick-

ness on ultraviolet radiation. 2. The affects of ultraviolet radiation on UV

Frisbees and Tonic water. 3. U.V. radiation is necessary for the produc-

tion and destruction of ozone.

D. Nuclear Reactors/Energy Generation;Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/LES-SON/905.html

NRC has an instructional website with fiveunits. The second unit is called NuclearReactors/Energy Generation and is designed

2


16


Chapter 2

around a series of graphics showing the partsand mechanics of different types of nuclearreactors. The following activities require stu-dents to identify the parts of a reactor and indi-cate the pathways of substances in the reactors:1. Powerplant Diagram – Boiling Water

Reactor (BWR)2. Powerplant Diagram – Pressurized Water

Reactor (PWR)

E. Activities For Teaching FundamentalConcepts of Nuclear Energy and Related Topics; Amarillo NationalResource Center for Plutoniumhttp://208.200.37.252/pdf/A00163.pdf

“Activities For Teaching FundamentalConcepts of Nuclear Energy and RelatedTopics” is a collection of activities designed toassist middle school teachers in introducing intotheir classrooms topics relating to atomic struc-ture, radioactivity, nuclear reactions, nuclearwastes, the environment and environmentalrecovery. Many of the activities can be easilyadapted to high school level. The activities arearranged by general topic. Activities that relateto Nuclear Reactions include:

1. Background for Nuclear Reactions2. Simulating Fission3. Nuclear Fission4. Chain Reactions5. Critical Mass6. The Ethics of Science7. Nuclear Reactors8. Fusion: Energy of the Future9. Fission vs. Fusion10. Nuclear Gin Rummy


Nuclear reactions release energy without thecombustion products of burning fuels, but theradioactivity of fuels and by-products posesother risks, which may last for thousands ofyears. (AAAS, 195)


What are the Benefits and Risks of Ionizing Radiation?


17

Chapter Contents

Benefits of Ionizing RadiationMedical UsesIndustryNuclear PowerAgricultureFood IrradiationConsumer ProductsThe Space ProgramSea PowerResearch

The Risks of Ionizing RadiationMeasuring Human ExposureStudying Radiation’s Effects on HumansHuman Health Effects of Ionizing RadiationHealth Effects of RadonRadiation-Related Health Effects from Living

Near Nuclear Power PlantsAccidental Releases

Determining Your ExposureDetermining Levels of RiskBalancing the Benefits and Risks of Radiation

Governmental Risk Assessments and Standards

Individual JudgementsSociety’s Judgements, Pro and ConFuture Prospects for Nuclear Power


A. Risk Analysis Lesson Plan; NationalSafety CouncilSee page 25 of this guide.

B. Science, Society, and America’s NuclearWaste; U.S. Department of Energyhttp://www.rw.doe.gov/progdocs/edresource/unit_3_toc/unit_3_toc.htm

DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement (OCRWM) has a resource cur-riculum called Science, “Society, and America’sNuclear Waste,” which consists of four units.The third unit includes the topic of Risk

Assessment and includes the following lesson plans:1. Risk Perception and Judgement2. Probability: The Language of

Risk Assessment3. Factors Affecting Risk Judgement

C. Understanding Risk; Sandia NationalLaboratorieshttp://education3.ca.sandia.gov/risk/index.las

Sandia National Laboratories has a tutorialcalled Understanding Risk that contains mostlyinformation, but also includes the followingworksheet activities:1. Worksheet 1 – Assessing Everyday Risks2. Worksheet 2 – Probability and Numbers of

Deaths

D. Risk Assessment for Kids and Educators;California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA)http://www.oehha.org/education/risk/index.html

OEHHA has an online tutorial called RiskAssessment for Kids and Educators. Most of theactivity is conveying information. Part of theactivity illustrates dose-response with an exam-ple of eating cookies, which is targeted at alower grade level audience, but the ideas are relevant to understanding quantitative risk analysis.

E. Radiation Reassessed; The Why Files,University of Wisconsinhttp://whyfiles.org/020radiation/

The Why Files (an online resource for studentsand teachers that explores the science behindcurrent news) has an in-depth report called“Radiation Reassessed” that has a lot of dataand information about issues and expert opin-ions regarding risks and benefits of radiation tai-



Chapter 3

3


18

lored to a student audience. It does not have les-son plans.

F. Radium: Narrative of a Moral Dilemna;Access Excellencehttp://www.accessexcellence.org/21st/SER/BE/radium.html

An educational site called ScienceNetLinks hasa lesson plan to examine the history of the split-ting of the atom. An extension to this lessonplan is a writing project in which the studentplays the role of a character in an ethical reallife dilemma faced by medical researchers andpatients which involves the historical use ofradium as a procedure to cure disease. Thiswriting project illuminates the importance ofbalancing the benefits and risks whenever thereis a breakthrough in the development of a pro-cedure or drug to cure a disease.

G. Environmental Risk Assessment Unit;Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley Collegehttp://www.bk.psu.edu/academic/sts/SylRisk.htm

Here is an excellent simulation on assessingenvironmental risk created by a professor atPenn State Berks-Lehigh Valley College. Inthis scenario, there has been a chemical leakfrom a manufacturing company. Students takeon the role of different special interest groups.They are given details of the chemical and someevaluative criteria. Each group’s task is to ratethe importance of the criteria on a scale of 1 to10. In other words, they must define which ofthe ways of looking at the situation are mostimportant to them. Next, each group analyzessome data and rates the scientific risk on a scaleof 1 to 10. Students then multiply the numberthey assigned the criteria for importance by thenumber they assigned to represent risk for eacharea to calculate the total perceived risk scorefor their interest group.


The value of any given technology may be dif-ferent for different groups of people and at dif-ferent points in time. (AAAS, 52)Risk analysis is used to minimize the likelihoodof unwanted side effects of a new technology.The public perception of risk may depend, how-ever, on psychological factors as well as scientif-ic ones. (AAAS, 52)

In deciding on proposals to introduce new tech-nologies or to curtail existing ones, some key

questions arise concerning alternatives, risks,costs, and benefits. What alternative ways arethere to achieve the same ends, and how do thealternatives compare to the plan being put for-ward? Who benefits and who suffers? What arethe financial and social costs, do they changeover time, and who bears them? What are therisks associated with using (or not using) thenew technology, how serious are they, and whois in jeopardy? What human, material, and ener-gy resources will be needed to build, install,operate, maintain, and replace the new technol-ogy, and where will they come from? How willthe new technology and its waste products bedisposed of and at what costs? (AAAS, 57)

At present, all fuels have advantages and disad-vantages so that society must consider the trade-offs among them. (AAAS, 195)

Industrialization brings an increased demand forand use of energy. Such usage contributes to thehigh standard of living in the industrially devel-oping nations but also leads to more rapiddepletion of the earth’s energy resources and toenvironmental risks associated with the use offossil and nuclear fuels. (AAAS, 195)

Radioactivity has many uses other than generat-ing energy, including in medicine, industry, andscientific research in many different fields.(AAAS, 253)

View science and technology thoughtfully, beingneither categorically antagonistic nor uncritical-ly positive. (AAAS, 287)

Insist that the critical assumptions behind anyline of reasoning be made explicit so that thevalidity of the position being taken—whetherone’s own or that of others—can be judged.(AAAS, 300)

Be aware, when considering claims, that whenpeople try to prove a point, they may select onlythe data that support it and ignore any thatwould contradict it. (AAAS, 300)

Science and technology are pursued for differentpurposes. Scientific inquiry is driven by thedesire to understand the natural world, andtechnological design is driven by the need tomeet human needs and solve human problems.


Chapter 3

3

19


Technology, by its nature, has a more directeffect on society than science because its pur-pose is to solve human problems, help humansadapt, and fulfill human aspirations.Technological solutions may create new prob-lems. Science, by its nature, answers questionsthat may or may not directly influence humans.Sometimes scientific advances challenge peo-ple’s beliefs and practical explanations concern-ing various aspects of the world. (NSES, 193)

Natural and human-induced hazards present theneed for humans to assess potential danger andrisk. Many changes in the environmentdesigned by humans bring benefits to society, aswell as cause risks. Students should understandthe costs and trade-offs of various hazards –ranging from those with minor risk to a fewpeople to major catastrophes with major risk tomany people. The scale of events and the accu-racy with which scientists and engineers can(and cannot) predict events are important con-siderations. (NSES, 199)

Understanding basic concepts and principles ofscience and technology should precede activedebate about the economics, policies, politics,and ethics of various science- and technology-related challenges. However, understanding sci-ence alone will not resolve local, national, orglobal challenges. (NSES, 199)

Progress in science and technology can beaffected by social issues and challenges. Fundingpriorities for specific health problems serve asexamples of ways that social issues influence sci-ence and technology. (NSES, 199)

Individuals and society must decide on propos-als involving new research and the introductionof new technologies into society. Decisionsinvolve assessment of alternatives, risks, costs,and benefits and consideration of who benefitsand who suffers, who pays and gains, and whatthe risks are and who bears them. Studentsshould understand the appropriateness andvalue of basic questions—”What can hap-pen?”—”What are the odds?”—and “How doscientists and engineers know what will happen?” (NSES, 199)



Chapter 3


How are Radioactive Wastes Managed?


21

Chapter Contents

Radioactive Waste DisposalTypes of Radioactive WasteSites and Methods of Waste Disposal

The Search for Permanent DisposalProposed High-Level Waste

Permanent Disposal SitePublic Concerns about Permanent Disposal

OptionsRadioactive Waste Cleanup

Nuclear Weapons WasteNuclear Reactor Waste

Low-Level Radioactive WasteOrphaned Sources and Contaminated

Scrap MetalNaturally Occurring Radioactive Materials

Transporting Radioactive Waste


A. Nuclear Waste Cube; Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/LES-SON/905.html

NRC has an instructional website with fiveunits. The third unit is called RadioactiveWaste and mainly tells students the distinctionbetween high- and low-level radioactive waste.The fourth unit deals with the Transportation ofRadioactive Materials. It includes informationin the form of text and graphics, but no class-room activities.

B. Activities For Teaching FundamentalConcepts of Nuclear Energy and Related Topics; Amarillo NationalResource Center for Plutonium http://208.200.37.252/pdf/A00163.pdf

This is a collection of activities designed toassist middle school teachers in introducing intotheir classrooms topics relating to atomic struc-ture, radioactivity, nuclear reactions, nuclearwastes, the environment and environmentalrecovery. Many of the activities can be easilyadapted to high school level. The activities arearranged by general topic.

Activities that involve Nuclear Waste include:1. Nuclear Waste: What Is It? Where Is It?2. Inventories of Spent Fuels3. Low Level Waste4. Low Level Waste Disposal5. Change the Rules

Activities that relate to Nuclear Waste and theEnvironment6. Permeability and the Porosity of Soils I7. Permeability and the Porosity of Soils II8. Groundwater9. Water-Logged10. Water Contamination11. Who Is the Guilty Party?12. Zeolites Simulation13. Biodegradability of Solid Waste14. Mapping Radon Gas in Texas15. Risk Analysis16. Seismic Risk Map of Texas

Activities that relate to Transporting NuclearWastes17. Safely Shipping Nuclear Waste18. Designing for Safety I19. Designing for Safety II20. Analyzing State Highway Maps21. Planning Hazardous Materials Shipment

Routes

Activities that relate to Pollution Cleanup22. Hazardous Waste



Chapter 4

4


22

C. Science, Society, and America’s NuclearWaste; DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management(OCRWM)http://www.rw.doe.gov/progdocs/edresource/unit_4_toc/unit_4_toc.htm

OCRWM has a resource curriculum called“Science, Society, and America’s NuclearWaste,” which consists of four units. The fourthunit is called The Waste Management Systemand includes the following lesson plans:1. What Measures Ensure Safe Transportation

of High-Level Nuclear Waste?2. What Will A Geologic Repository Be Like?3. The Role of the Multi-Purpose Canister in

the Waste Management System4. Designing for Safety5. Transporting Hazardous Materials6. Rock Characteristics Important in

Repository Siting7. Porosity and Permeability8. Solubility9. Mineral Solubility10. Thermal Stability11. Ion Exchange and Zeolites12. Topographic Map Skills13. Topography of the Yucca Mountain Site14. Considerations for Siting the High-Level

Nuclear Waste Repository

D. Transporting Radioactive Waste: AnEngineering Activity; DOE Center for Environmental Management http://www.em.doe.gov/teacher/trwaea.html

The Center’s teacher website provides a lessonplan called “Transporting Radioactive Waste:An Engineering Activity,” in which studentsdesign and test containers to contain waste andconsider factors such as accidents, leaks, andease of transport.


Technological problems often create a demandfor new scientific knowledge, and new technolo-gies make it possible for scientists to extendtheir research in new ways or to undertakeentirely new lines of research. The availabilityof new technology itself often sparks scientificadvances. (AAAS, 47)

Industrialization brings an increased demand forand use of energy. Such usage contributes to thehigh standard of living in the industrially devel-

oping nations but also leads to more rapid deple-tion of the earth’s energy resources and to envi-ronmental risks associated with the use of fossiland nuclear fuels. (AAAS, 195)

Science and technology are pursued for differentpurposes. Scientific inquiry is driven by thedesire to understand the natural world, andtechnological design is driven by the need tomeet human needs and solve human problems.Technology, by its nature, has a more directeffect on society than science because its pur-pose is to solve human problems, help humansadapt, and fulfill human aspirations.Technological solutions may create new prob-lems. Science, by its nature, answers questionsthat may or may not directly influence humans.Sometimes scientific advances challenge peo-ple’s beliefs and practical explanations concern-ing various aspects of the world. (NSES, 193)

Human activities can enhance potential for haz-ards. Acquisition of resources, urban growth,and waste disposal can accelerate rates of natu-ral change. (NSES, 199)

Individuals and society must decide on proposalsinvolving new research and the introduction ofnew technologies into society. Decisions involveassessment of alternatives, risks, costs, and bene-fits and consideration of who benefits and whosuffers, who pays and gains, and what the risksare and who bears them. Students should under-stand the appropriateness and value of basicquestions – “What can happen?” – “What arethe odds?” – and “How do scientists and engi-neers know what will happen?” (NSES, 199)


Chapter 4

5Activities for Chapter 5 of

Understanding Radiation in Our World:How Is The Public Protected

From Radiation?


23

Chapter Contents

Government Responsibilities in Protecting the PublicControlling Risks of Exposure to Radiation:

Federal and Individual RolesHow You Can Limit Your Radiation

ExposureGovernment Controls on Exposure to

RadiationControlling Radiation in the AirControlling Radiation in WaterControlling Medical ExposuresControlling Exposure to RadonMonitoring Radiation Levels in the

EnvironmentControlling UV Radiation ExposureControlling Occupational ExposuresMajor Federal Legislation Governing

RadiationResponsible Federal Agencies

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)The Department of Energy (DOE)The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Department of Defense (DOD)The Department of Transportation (DOT)The Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS)The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA)The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)The National Council on Radiation Protection

and Measurements (NCRP)Federal, State and Local Government

FunctionsResponding to EmergenciesSetting StandardsIssuing GuidanceConducting Site Cleanup

Other Roles in Managing RadiationThe Role of the States and Native

American TribesThe Role of International OrganizationsYour Role as a Citizen


A. Science, Society, and America’s NuclearWaste; DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWMhttp://www.rw.doe.gov/progdocs/edresource/unit_3_toc/unit_3_toc.htm

OCRWM has a resource curriculum called“Science, Society, and America’s NuclearWaste,” which consists of four units. The thirdunit is called The Nuclear Waste Policy Actand includes the following lesson plans:1. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act2. Approaching a Complex Task3. Nuclear Waste Challenges and Solutions

B. Critical Thinking Curriculum Model; LosAlamos National Laboratory http://set.lanl.gov/programs/cif/

The “Critical Thinking Curriculum Model,”which includes five areas focusing on thenuclear world. Each curriculum area addressesseveral topics in the form of assignment “tasks”that engage the student/teacher teams inresearch, critical thinking, communicatingthoughts, and making connections. For eachtask, there are “Suggested Classroom Activities”which provide additional opportunities for stu-dents to demonstrate what they have learned bycompleting the task.

The curriculum area dealing with The Storageand Disposition of Radioactive Materialsincludes the following topics:1. Use of Radioactive Materials2. Types of Radioactive Waste3. Issues and Concerns4. Laws and Regulations5. Options6. Student Conference on the Nuclear World



Chapter 5

5


24

The curriculum area called The Future of theNuclear World includes the following topics:1. Current Nuclear Events2. Future World Environments in General3. Future World Environments, specifically

energy4. Role of Things Nuclear in Future World

Environments, specifically weapons5. Role of Things Nuclear in Future World

Environments, specifically medical, indus-trial, and other applications

6. Public Attitudes and InstitutionalResponses to Technology in the Future withEmphasis on Nuclear Things


Technological problems often create a demandfor new scientific knowledge, and new technolo-gies make it possible for scientists to extendtheir research in new ways or to undertakeentirely new lines of research. The availabilityof new technology itself often sparks scientificadvances. (AAAS, 47)

Decisions to slow the depletion of energysources through efficient technology can bemade at many levels, from personal to national,and they always involve trade-offs of economiccosts and social values. (AAAS, 195)

A massive effort went into developing the tech-nology for the two nuclear fission bombs usedon Japan in World War II, nuclear fusionweapons that followed, and reactors for the con-trolled conversion of nuclear energy into elec-tric energy. Nuclear weapons and energy remainmatters of public concern and controversy.(AAAS, 253)

Insist that the critical assumptions behind anyline of reasoning be made explicit so that thevalidity of the position being taken—whetherone’s own or that of others—can be judged.(AAAS, 300)

Be aware, when considering claims, that whenpeople try to prove a point, they may select onlythe data that support it and ignore any thatwould contradict it. (AAAS, 300)Personal choice concerning fitness and healthinvolves multiple factors. Personal goals, peerand social pressures, ethnic and religious beliefs,

and understanding of biological consequencescan all influence decisions about health prac-tices. (NSES, 197)

Progress in science and technology can beaffected by social issues and challenges. Fundingpriorities for specific health problems serve asexamples of ways that social issues influence sci-ence and technology. (NSES, 199)

Individuals and society must decide on proposalsinvolving new research and the introduction ofnew technologies into society. Decisions involveassessment of alternatives, risks, costs, and bene-fits and consideration of who benefits and whosuffers, who pays and gains, and what the risksare and who bears them. Students should under-stand the appropriateness and value of basicquestions—”What can happen?”—”What arethe odds?”—and “How do scientists and engi-neers know what will happen?” (NSES, 199)


Chapter 5

Section II:Risk AnalysisLesson Plan

Introduction


27

Estimated Time:4 - 6 hours (over 5 days)

Understanding sought:Risk analysis is used to minimize the likelihoodof unwanted side effects of a new technology.The public perception of risk may depend, how-ever, on psychological as well as scientific fac-tors. (Benchmarks for Science Literacy,page 52)

Natural and human induced hazards present theneed for humans to assess potential danger andrisk. Many changes in the environmentdesigned by humans bring benefits to society, aswell as cause risks. Students should understandthe costs and tradeoffs of various hazards – ranging from those with minor risk to a fewpeople to major catastrophes with major risk tomany people. The scale of events and accuracywith which scientists and engineers can andcannot predict events are important considera-tions. (National Science Education Standards, page 199)

Individuals and society must decide upon pro-posals involving new research and the introduc-tion of new technologies into society. Decisionsinvolving assessment of alternatives, risks, costs,and benefits, and consideration of who benefitsand who suffers, who pays and who gains, andwhat the risks are and who bears them.Students should understand the appropriatenessand value of basic questions – “What can hap-pen” – “What are the odds” – and “How do sci-entists and engineers know what will happen?”(National Science Education Standards, page 199)

View science and technology thoughtfully,being neither categorically antagonistic noruncritically positive. (Benchmarks for ScienceLiteracy, page 287)

What students are doing and why:Students learn how scientists measure risk byestimating both the probability and conse-quences of an event or technology. Studentsthen make the distinction between quantitativeestimates of risk and estimates based upon psy-chological factors. Upon making this distinc-tion, students practice calculating risks andviewing familiar risks by comparing quantitativeestimates against their personal assessments ofrisk. The purpose of this is to provide studentswith a new tool in which to evaluate risk.Students then examine the topic of radiationand nuclear energy through risk analysis.Students will apply their understanding ofquantitative and psychological dimensions ofrisk analysis to communicate the risk of operat-ing a nuclear power plant to the public impact-ed by it.

Note on commonly held studentideas:A bit of probing may reveal that students’knowledge of risk is highly subjective, and thatstudents probably do not rate risk in the sameway as experts in the field of probabilistic riskanalysis. Expert assessment of the risks associat-ed with various activities and technologies cor-relate highly with statistical frequencies ofdeath; students’ judgements often incorporateconsiderations other than annual fatalities. Inthe case of nuclear power plants, factors such aswhether the technology could have catastrophicconsequences or whether the technology isunfamiliar potentially influence students’ judge-ments of risk. The challenge, then, is to makestudents aware of the psychological factors thatshape their perceptions of risk and weigh thoseperceptions against a scientific approach to riskassessment. The goal is to have studentsdemonstrate this understanding by being able tocommunicate a rational risk assessment in asimulated debate over nuclear power.

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

Introduction


28

Objective:Students will be able to complete a risk analysisabout nuclear power using a quantitative view-point of risk provided by scientific data and con-sidering public perceptions of risk that areshaped by subjective judgements.

Advance Preparation:Duplicate handouts and make overheads.Distribute copies of handout, RISK COMMU-NICATION: FACING PUBLIC OUTRAGE,and assign students to read it as homeworkbefore the class.

Handouts:• “RISK COMMUNICATION: FACING

PUBLIC OUTRAGE”(Article by Peter M. Sandman, published in EPA Journal, Nov. 1987,pp.21-22.)

• SAMPLE SITUATIONS FOR RISK DISCUSSION

• RISK PERCEPTION WORKSHEET• EXPRESSING RISK DATA

(from “A Fistful of Risks.” Discover 17 (5), 82-83, May 1996)

• ENERGY ALTERNATIVES(data from Nuclear Electricity, 6th edition, Uranium Information Centre Ltd., http://www.uic.com.au/ne6.htm)

• ALL ABOUT RADON(National Safety Council)

• INTERPRETING THE BEIR-V REPORT• NUCLEAR ACCIDENT SCENARIO• THREE-MILE ISLAND CONSE-

QUENCES• RISK ANALYSIS INSTITUTE• PRO AND CON STATEMENTS ON

NUCLEAR POWER• RISK ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT• A PRESENTATION PLANNER

(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/primer.html)

• AVOIDING PRESENTATION PITFALLS(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/primer.html)

Overheads:• COMPARISON OF TWO EVENTS

WITH EQUAL RISK(Sandia National Laboratories,http://ttd.sandia.gov/risk/riskasmt)

• CARTOON (A Steve Kelly cartoon,Copley News Service)

• RISK STATISTICS(from “A Fistful of Risks.” Discover 17 (5),82-83, May 1996)

• WHAT IS RISK?• CALCULATING RISK

(from ChemCom, 2nd Edition, AmericanChemical Society, p.317)

• EXPRESSING RISK• COMPARING RISKS

(University of Michigan,http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduc-tion/risk.html; adapted from Radiobiology forthe Radiologist, Fourth Edition; Eric Hall1994, J.B. Lippincott Company.)

• REM VS. MILLIREM(Nuclear Regulatory Commission,http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/EDUCATE/REACTOR/05/fig013.html)

• SOURCES OF RADIATION EXPOSURETO THE US POPULATION(National Council on Radiation Protectionand Measurements)

• RADON RISK EVALUATION CHARTS(From “Citizen’s Guide to Radon,” U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1994)

• HISTORY OF RADIATION RISK ESTIMATE(Nuclear Regulatory Commission,www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1437/V2/sr1437v2.html)

• LINEAR NO-THRESHOLD RISKMODEL(Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov/NRC/EDUCATE/REACTOR/09/fig006.html)

• RADIATION-RELATED HEALTHEFFECTS FROM LIVING NEARNUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

• NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACCIDENTPROBABILITIES AND CONSEQUENCES

• POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OFNUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACCIDENTS (From U.S. House of Representatives,Committee on Interior and Insular AffairsSubcommittee on Oversight andInvestigations, “Calculation of ReactorAccident Consequences (CRAC2) for USNuclear Power Plants (Health Effects andCosts) Conditional on an ‘SST1’ release,”November 1, 1982.)

• MEETING NOTICE

RiskAnalysisLesson Plan

Introduction

AWhat Is Risk?


29

ASSIGNMENT prior to class: Distribute thehandout RISK COMMUNICATION: FACINGPUBLIC OUTRAGE and ask students to readprior to class.

1. Scientific factors

(Adapted from “Nuclear Plant Risks Studies:Failing the Grade,” Union of ConcernedScientists.)

SAY: Consider an event (defined scenario)that occurs, on average, once a decadeand kills 40 people when it happens.Consider another event that happensevery other year and kills 8 people eachtime. (Display these statistics in view ofall students) You can only spend $1million dollars and totally eliminate thechance of one of these events fromoccurring again. Faced with this deci-sion, you want to spend the moneywhere it will do the most good.

ASK: Would you eliminate the first eventbecause it injures 40 people as opposedto 8 people? Or would you eliminatethe second event because it happensmore often?

Present the following two options:

Option one: Eliminate the first event because itinjures 40 people as opposed to 8 people.

Option two : Eliminate the second event because ithappens more often.

SAY: In making your decision, consider if oneevent has more risk than the other.Justify your decision.

Elicit responses. Students should conclude thatthe risk for both events is the same. You canexplain this interpretation in the following way.

SAY: In this case you can’t lose. The elimina-tion of either event prevents it fromkilling an average of four people per year.

Display the following:

1 event every 10 years killing 40 people perevent averages 4 fatalities/year1 event every 2 years killing 8 people per eventaverages 4 fatalities/year.

SAY: These two events have exactly the samerisk, even though they have differentprobabilities and consequences. Butwhat if the second event killed 10 peo-ple each time it happened? How manyfatalities per year would result?

Display the following:

1 event every 2 years killing 10 people perevent averages 5 fatalities/year.

SAY: It might be tempting to spend themoney on the first event because it caus-es 40 fatalities, but it would be wiser toeliminate the second event because itultimately injures more people and thusposes greater risk. This exercise showshow critical it is when evaluating risk, toconsider both the probability of an eventand the consequences from that event.

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

A.What isRisk?


(Display the COMPARISON OF TWOEVENTS WITH EQUAL RISK overhead.)

2. Psychological factors

Display or read the following:

“The values to society of risks and benefits,as perceived by the people in that society,are not the sums of the values to the indi-viduals affected. The catastrophe that kills1,000 people in a whack is perceived as farmore threatening – that is, has far morenegative value – than 1,000 single fatalityauto wrecks.”

—Stephen H. Hanauer, Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, 1975

Elicit discussion of this statement by havingstudents provide examples of real world sce-narios that support or refute this opinion.

ASK: Do you generally approach risk morerationally or more emotionally? Elicitexamples.

(The following activity is based upon theassigned reading entitled RISK COMMUNICA-TION: FACING PUBLIC OUTRAGE .)

SAY: In preparation for class today, you readan article entitled RISK COMMUNI-CATION: FACING PUBLIC OUTRAGE.

ASK: What does the author mean by “outragefactors”? What does the article say aresome outrage factors that influence peo-ple’s feelings about risk? Can you thinkof any others?

SAY: We are going to do an activity in whichwe evaluate comments with regards torisk. Your task is to determine whichoutrage factors are evident in each of thefollowing situations.

Distribute the SAMPLE SITUATIONS FORRISK DISCUSSION handout. Review and dis-cuss each of the situations.

Situation #1 – factsThe average American has a 1 in 250,000chance of dying in an airplane crash.

The average American has a 1 in 45 chance ofdying in an auto accident.The average American has a 1 in 160,000chance of choking to death on food.

Situation #2 – discussionQ: Do you think that if someone in the indus-try said they found a safe way to store this waste,would you feel comfortable with that?

A: No. I would like to have some independentverification of that. When someone’s personalor corporate financial interest is at stake, andthey set forth a bold new announcement thatthe following issues have been satisfactorilyresolved and there are no public health or otherconcerns that need now to be addressed, they’veall been satisfactorily settled, I’d like independ-ent verification of those kinds of things...

Situation #3 – comment on studies“...the most recent study that came out (we’retalking August of ‘96), that took the figuresfrom the Columbia health study. And theColumbia health study said, ‘Look, there’s ele-vated levels of cancer, but we’re reluctant toattribute it to Three Mile Island.’ Well, theUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, theirDepartment of Public Health looked at the dataand said, ‘Look, between ‘75 and ‘85 in theThree Mile Island area, there was a five to tentimes increase of lung cancer and leukemia.’ Imean, clearly, it depends on who’s doing thestudy and who has what to gain from the study.”

Situation #4 – comment“There are energy ‘haves’ around the world, likethe United States, and there are energy ‘havenots.’ Every country has got to find some sourceof energy, or they’re just going to sit in theMiddle Ages. If they’re going to do that, they’regoing to find energy somewhere – or import it.The Japanese, of course, were highly dependenton oil. We all know that’s about the only thingwe go to war for, really, is to protect the oil.And so the Japanese know they can’t bedependent on oil. They’ve gone big time intothe nuclear program. The Chinese have a lot ofcoal, and they’ll start with coal. They’ll move tonuclear power very quickly, because they havean educated, skilled group of people that can dothat. The only energy policy that I’ve seen ourgovernment really support is the fact that wewill go to war to protect our sources of oil.”


A.What isRisk?

30


Situation #5 – discussionPerson A (a toxicologist): What might be alife-threatening hazard is not perceived thatway, either by the public or the press. But if wesay, “We have some TCE in the groundwater,but we are going to deal with something else,”the people with the TCE in their water go nuts.A public official can’t say “You have a one-in-a-million risk, what’s the big deal?”

Person B: He should say it while he is drink-ing some of that water. Is there a more user-friendly way to define risk, a way that would bemore communicative? When you say “one in amillion,” the public thinks “I don’t want to bethat one.”

Person A: We have also learned in my fieldthat the public seems to divide risk regardless ofhow you describe it statistically: risk is either/or.Is it something I have to worry about or not?Do I take an umbrella to work or not?

Person B: We hear “one in a million” risk ofcancer as being a criteria for making decisions.Is anyone looking at other health effects thatmight be caused by TCE?

Person A: Absolutely. That is a pet peeve ofmine as a toxicologist. I think it is remiss tofocus on theoretical one-in-a-million cancerrisks and ignore subtle nervous system anddevelopmental problems. We have a tremen-dously high miscarriage rate in this country, andnot a whole lot of research is going into why.We should research these things, de-emphasizethe big “C” and start thinking about what ismore important in terms of public health. Notthat cancer isn’t. I mean one in three of us willsuffer some kind of cancer in our lifetime.Cancer is an epidemic. I am just saying thataddressing environmental risk at a “one in amillion” risk level doesn’t make much sense tome as a toxicologist.

One in a million chance of death is equal tosmoking 1.4 cigarettes, traveling six minutes bycanoe or 10 miles by bicycle, driving 300 milesin a car or flying 1,000 miles by jet. There isanother number you may know. Somewherebetween two and three, maybe as much as four,percent of cancers are attributable to what wewould call environmental causes. So, if wecleaned up everything, we would still onlyreduce cancer rates by four percent.

Person B: Whether it is important depends onwhether you are in that four percent. To me,we don’t look at cost/benefit enough. To whatlevels do you clean? Do you clean up somethingfor the sake of it and not look at the benefit.That seems to be a major problem.

Situation #6 – cartoon(Display the CARTOON overhead.)

ASK: How does the author propose we can getpolitical leaders, government agencies, and citi-zens to be more rational decision-makers withrespect to risk?

3. Risk definition

As a class, formulate a working definition ofrisk. Compare your definitions to the followingexpert definitions.

(Display the “WHAT IS RISK?” overhead.)

ASK: What elements does our definition havein common with their definitions?

31

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

A.What isRisk?

BCalculating Risk


33

1. Risk statistics

SAY: The common rule used by regulators indetermining human health risks associ-ated with new technology is “One in amillion.” That is, the new technology issafe if it does not increase the risk offatality to the population to more thanone in a million. Risky activities areoften expressed in terms of their mortality rate.

ASK: When we say, “one in a million,” whatis that called? (a probability) If I flip acoin, what is the probability that it willcome up heads? (50% or one out of twotimes). In the language of probability,we say the probability is 0.5. What doesit mean if the probability of a coin com-ing up heads is 0.0? (the coin will neverbe heads) What does it mean if theprobability is 1.0? (the coin will alwayscome up heads)

ASSIGNMENT: Distribute the RISK PERCEP-TION WORKSHEET handout. Instruct stu-dents to rank the events from most risky (1) toleast risky (16) and then guess the probability ofthat event occurring. After allowing approxi-mately ten minutes for students to complete thechart, ask a few students to offer their mostrisky and least risky choices and explain theirrationale for ranking.

(Display the RISK STATISTICS overhead.)

SAY: If your judgements about what is mostrisky and least risky differ from the data,then you based your judgement onsomething other than statistical evidence.

ASK: Without the data, how did you measurerisk?

ASK: Which of those risks could be reduced?Which of those risks could you livewith?

SAY: Reducing risks has benefits and costs.

ASSIGNMENT: You are charged with the taskof reducing one of those risks. You can do so bymaking one law or regulation. State your law orregulation. Explain how your law or regulationwould reduce the risk. Then explain the costsof reducing this risk. (Do not limit your defini-tion of cost to money. Consider such things associetal and environmental costs, too.)

(end day one)

2. Calculating risk

(Adapted from ChemCom, 2nd Edition,American Chemical Society, page 317.)

SAY: You are taking a trip to a place 500miles away. You want to travel by thesafest means. Which mode of travelwould you choose? Rank the followingmodes from safest to least safe:

• Bicycle• Auto• Commercial Airline• Train• Bus

(Display the CALCULATING RISK overhead.)

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

B.CalculatingRisk

ASK: How are these definitions reflected inthe risk data of the activity we just did?

Review of how to express risk data

SAY: No matter how risks are defined or quan-tified, they are usually expressed as aprobability of adverse effects associatedwith a particular activity. Risk isexpressed as a fraction, with units from0.0 to 1.0, where at one there is absolutecertainty that risk will occur. Scientificnotation is generally used to presentquantitative risk information.

(Display EXPRESSING RISK overhead.)

Actual Scientific Read asNumber Notation

.1 1 X 10-1 One in ten

.01 1 X 10-2 One in a hundred

.001 1 X 10-3 One in a thousand

.0001 1 X 10-4 One in ten thousand

.00001 1 X 10-5 One in a hundred thousand

.000001 1 X 10-6 One in a million

.0000001 1 X 10-7 One in ten million

ASSIGNMENT: Distribute EXPRESSINGRISK DATA worksheet. Assign students toconvert the probability for each event into adecimal and scientific notation.

3. Comparing risks

SAY: Individuals have different perceptions ofrisk. Consider the risks associated withsmoking, driving, and medical proce-dures using radiation.

ASK: Which do you perceive as more risky?Which do perceive as acceptable? Nowconsider the following data comparingthese risks.

(Display COMPARING RISKS overhead.)

ASK: Based upon this risk analysis, which riskdo you perceive as more risky? Whichdo you perceive as acceptable?

SAY: While the definition of risk is fairlystraightforward, the term “risky” can beharder to define. What’s unacceptably


34

SAY: Another way of saying this is that if you take a 10 mile bike ride, you are increasing your chance of dying by one millionth. To calculate the risk of dying by taking a 500-mile bike ride, risk analysts use the following formula:

Risk of Fatality = Probability X Consequence

SAY: We said the “Probability” of death bybike is one in a million per 10 miles.

one in a million = 1/1,000,000 = one millionth= 0.000001

SAY: Consequences can include fatalities,monetary-costs, a quantity, or, in thiscase, a magnitude.

SAY: Calculate the risk of dying if you take your 500-mile trip by other modes of travel.

Auto 0.000001 X 500 miles = 0.000005 or 5.0 X 10-6

100 miles

Airline 0.000001 X 500 miles = 0.0000005 or 5.0 X 10-7

1000 miles

Train 0.000001 X 500 miles = 4.17 X 10-7

1200 miles

Bus 0.000001 X 500 miles = 1.79 X 10-7

2800 miles

(Display “WHAT IS RISK?” overhead.)

SAY: Now let’s return to our expert’s defini-tions of risk.


B.CalculatingRisk

Mode of Travel Distance

Bicycle 10 milesAuto 100 milesCommercial Airline 1,000 milesTrain 1,200 milesBus 2,800 miles

0.00000110 miles X 500 miles = 0.00005 or 5.0 X 10-5

Probability X Consequence = Risk of Fatality (Magnitude)

35


risky to one person may be merely anadrenaline rush to another. It’s impor-tant to realize that people do not evalu-ate risks solely by comparing numbers.Perceptions of risk, whether based onfact or not, frequently are people’s solemeans of evaluating risk. As SupremeCourt justice Oliver Wendell Holmesput it: “Most people think dramatically,not quantitatively.”

ASK: How did your perceptions of the risksassociated with smoking, driving, andmedical procedures using radiation com-pare to the quantitative data? Do youtend to evaluate risks in your life more“quantitatively or dramatically.”

SAY: So what’s the best way of evaluatingeveryday risks you encounter? In manycases, all you’ve had time for is a snapdecision based on minimal informationand a gut feeling. In other cases, youmay want to invest more time and effortbefore making a particularly risky choicethat could have a major impact on yourlife. To be able to make rational,informed decisions about risks, we needto understand some basic concepts ofrisk analysis and decision making.

4. Practice calculating risks

SAY: We are going to do an activity in which we compare risks of energy pro-duction. Let’s return to our expert’s def-initions of risk.

(Display WHAT IS RISK? overhead.)

ASK: What are the two factors we must takeinto account when calculating riskquantitatively?

Answer: Probability that an event will occurand the consequence if the event wereto occur. Risk = Probability XConsequence

ASSIGNMENT: Distribute ENERGY ALTER-NATIVES handout. When students have hadtime to complete this hypothetical scenariohave them share their answers with the class.

(end day two)

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

B.CalculatingRisk

C1. Perceptions of radiation

SAY: I’m going to say a few words and I wantyou to write down the first word thatcomes into your head in response.

RadiologyRadiationNuclear

Analyze the associations. Do they reflect bene-fits or risks? Group responses accordingly.

Watch the ten-minute video, “A Look atRadiation.” Instruct students to add to the listsbased upon the information in the video.

SAY: Let’s review two important terms in thevideo that will help us be able to talkabout your radiation exposure and risk.The first term is the millirem. A per-son’s exposure to radiation is measuredin units called millirem. A milliremmeasures the effects of radiation on thehuman body much as degrees measuretemperature. There are 1,000 milliremsin one rem. There are other units usedto measure radiation, but for our purpos-es we will use millirem.

(Display REM vs. MILLIREM overhead.)

SAY: The second term is average annual expo-sure. In the United States, a person’saverage exposure to radiation is about360 millirem per year. Roughly 300 mil-lirem come from natural sources of radia-tion, and 60 millirem come from man-made sources, primarily medical proce-dures. This means that every day, everyminute of our lives, we are all subject tothe constant bombardment of radiationproduced in our natural environment,

even from radionuclides in our own bodies, and from manmade sources of radiation.

ASK: What do you predict is your largestsource of exposure?

(Display SOURCES OF RADIATION EXPO-SURE TO US POPULATION overhead.)

SAY: Radon is a radioactive gas that has beenfound in homes all over the UnitedStates. It comes from the natural break-down of uranium in soil, rock and water,and gets into the air you breathe.Radon typically moves up through theground to the air above and into yourhome through cracks and other holes inthe foundation. You cannot see, smell,or taste it. When you breathe air con-taining radon, you increase your risk ofgetting lung cancer. In fact, the U.S.Surgeon General has warned that radonis the second leading cause of lung can-cer in the United States today. If yourhouse is tested and is found to haveexcessive levels of radon, it can be fixed.But even if your house has no radon, youare still likely to be exposed to it some-where you go every day.

SAY: Consider the following discussion (fromthe PBS Frontline program titled“Nuclear Reaction: Why Do AmericansFear Nuclear Power?”http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front-line/shows/reaction/interviews)

Question: This area has a very high concentra-tion of radon, are you concerned?

Answer: Radon has always been here. Thehomes have always been here. Even

Radiation and Risk


RiskAnalysis

Lesson Plan

C.Radiationand Risk

37

though the newer homes are beingbuilt more air-tight, radon has alwaysbeen here. I really think radon is aminor problem, compared with theroutine releases from a nuclear powerplant. Most of the radon goes upthrough the dirt and out into the air.Some of it is trapped into homes. Butthere are methods in place nowwhere people can alleviate all of that.But a routine operating power plantreleases approximately 1,000 curies amonth – that is not trivial. And youmultiply that times every nuclearpower plant in this country or in theworld, and you get massive doses.And one of the highest things that isreleased on a routine basis is krypton-85. And the worldwide levels ofkrypton-85 are increasing horren-dously and exponentially.

ASK: What psychological factors seem toshape this person’s perception of risk?

(Display RADON RISK EVALUATIONCHART overhead.)

Distribute the ALL ABOUT RADON handout.

SAY: Let’s look at some ways to boost youraverage annual exposure.

A person taking a cross-country flightwould receive about two to five addi-tional millirem of radiation perroundtrip, depending on flight altitudeand shielding on the airplane. Due tothe thinner atmosphere at the altitudesinvolved in cross-country flights, a trav-eler is exposed to more cosmic radiation.Because of their occupations, airlinepilots and flight attendants routinely areexposed to higher levels of radiationthan many other workers. Airline crewmembers and frequent flyers receiveannual doses on the order of between500 and 600 millirem.

A person undergoing a full set of dental X-rayswould receive about 10-39 additional milliremper set of X-rays.

A person working in a nuclear power plantwould receive approximately 300 additional mil-

lirem per year. (The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission’s limit is 5,000 millirem per year foroccupational exposures).

A person living within 50 miles of a nuclearpower facility would receive approximately oneadditional millirem per year from the facility.(The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s limit is25 millirem per year for public exposures)

2. Radiation and its effects onhumans

(From Los Alamos Science, Number 23 1995,pages 91-92)

SAY: Radiation and its effects on humans,may be one of the most studied, mostregulated, and most feared of the physi-cal, chemical and biological insults towhich we are exposed. Some scientistsbelieve that, because biological organ-isms evolved in the presence of low lev-els of ionizing radiation, we and otherlife forms must have developed effectivemechanisms to repair the damage causedby low levels of exposure. Other scien-tists contend that even the lowest levelsof radiation have the potential to causeserious biological effects, such as cancer.

In fact, no one knows for sure if lowdoses of ionizing radiation can causecancer. What we do know is that highdoses of radiation can cause cancer, andthe risks can be quantified. This datagenerally comes from four sources:Japanese atomic-bomb survivors,Chernobyl and other radiation acci-dents, occupational exposures, and med-ical exposures. The following table is asummary of the radiation risk estimatesused by federal agencies following thepublication of the documents shown.

(Display HISTORY OF RADIATION RISKESTIMATE overhead.)

SAY: Note the year each report was published.Then note the increase in fatality esti-mates over time. What do the changesin these official risk estimates over theyears indicate?



C.Radiationand Risk

38

Help students see how the data reflectsthe delayed effects of cancer followingthe initial exposure of Japanese atomicbomb survivors. Premature evaluationsof the delayed effects of radiationamong the Japanese survivors, as well asan over reliance on animal data to pre-dict radiation effects in humans, lead toearly risk estimates. Risk estimates hadto be revised as the appearance of longdelayed excess cancer cases among theJapanese survivor population arose.

3. The risk of cancer fromincreased radiation exposure

Pass around a hat with a (for example)poker chip for each student. Twenty per-cent of the poker chips should be a differ-ent color (red, for example) than the otherchips. One or two chips should be anothercolor (purple, for example). Have eachstudent randomly pick a chip out of thehat. Explain that the red chips representthe rate of cancer mortality in the UnitedStates. On average, one in five people,20%, die of cancer. The purple chips rep-resent excess cancer deaths above the normal rate.

ASK: How do we know if these excess cancerdeaths among you are caused by radia-tion exposure and if so are they statisti-cally significant?

SAY: Because the rate at which radiationcauses cancer is quite low, it is very dif-ficult to detect statistically significantincreases in cancer mortality caused byradiation unless the population is verylarge. Consequently, risk based esti-mates for radiation induced cancer areprimarily based on data from theJapanese atomic bomb survivors.

SAY: The real question is how much radia-tion exposure will increase your chancesof cancer death over your lifetime. Weare going to do an exercise where wecalculate the risks of cancer fromincreased radiation exposure.

ASSIGNMENT: Distribute copies of INTER-PRETING THE BEIR-V handout. When mostof the students have had time to complete theproblem set, have them share their answers witha neighbor. Then ask some students to sharetheir answers with the class.

(end day three)

4. The linear no-threshold model

SAY: Because exposure to high levels of ioniz-ing radiation is known to cause cancerand other health problems, public

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

C.Radiationand Risk

39


1972 BEIR-I report 100 (Biological Effects of Radiation)

1977 ICRP Publication 26 200 (International Commission on Radiological Protection)

1980 BEIR-III report 200

1990 RERF publication 400-500(Radiation Effects Research Foundation)

1990 BEIR-V report 800

Excess cancer fatalities among 100,000 people receiving instantaneous

external radiation doses of 10 remPublication

health regulators extrapolate from theseknown risks at high doses to estimaterisks for low doses. These extrapolationsfrom high doses to low doses are basedon theory rather than hard human data.What is thought to be a more cautious,conservative approach assumes that anyexposure could cause similar effects.Here is how it looks on paper.

(Display LINEAR NO-THRESHOLD RISKMODEL overhead.)

SAY: Let’s start at the high-dose/high-risk endof the graph, since this is where we havehard human data.

ASK: How would you describe this line (It’sstraight) What does a straight linemean?

Guide students to look at how the line was cre-ated with the data. For each dose there is a risk.Help students see that each decrease in dose hasan exactly proportional decrease in risk.

SAY: That type of relationship between doseand risk creates a line and we call thisgraph “Linear.” Notice that the riskdoes not start at 0 because there is somerisk of cancer, even with no additionalexposure. The slope of the line justmeans that a person that receives 5 remsin a year incurs 10 times as much risk asa person that receives 0.5 rems in a year.

ASK: According to this graph, is there a doseafter which there is no risk?

(Any dose, no matter how small, produces somerisk.)

SAY: We say there is “no-threshold” belowwhich there is no risk. This model is,therefore, called the “Linear No-Threshold Model.” Exposure to radia-tion is not a guarantee of harm.However, because of the liner, no-threshold model, more exposure meansmore risk, and there is no dose of radia-tion so small that it will not have someeffect. Much of the current controversysurrounding radiation is based onwhether we should assume low doses alsocause harmful health affects.



C.Radiationand Risk

40

DMaking Decisions Based Upon Calculation Of Risk


RiskAnalysis

Lesson Plan

D.MakingDecisions

Based UponCalculation of

Risk

41

1. Background

Many people worry about the risks of radiationnot so much because of routine, low-level expo-sures, but because of the possibility of an acci-dent. For many people, nuclear power plantshave this stigma attached to them.

In September 1994, The Los Angeles Times con-veyed the findings of a University of Oregonstudy in which members of various Americanpopulations had been asked to rank varioustechnologies, pursuits, and habits according tohow risky they thought they were. Respondentsamong college students and respondents amongmembers of the League of Women Voters hadranked nuclear energy production as the tophazard – riskier, for example, than habitual ciga-rette smoking or working as a police officer. Incontrast, respondents who were scientists hadgiven nuclear energy production the 20th rankand had ranked bicycling, swimming, andundergoing an X-ray exam as more hazardous.

The public perception of nuclear power haschanged over time. The Los Angeles Times arti-cle reported that, in 1971, 58 percent ofAmericans polled in a survey had said theywould be agreeable to having a nuclear powerplant in their respective communities.According to a later survey, however, only 28percent said they would be agreeable to such,and 63 percent said they’d be averse to having anuclear power plant around.

People living near nuclear power plants areexposed to very small amounts of radiation fromthe plants, generally less than one millirem peryear. In the United States, EPA sets strict stan-dards governing radiation emissions, enforcedby the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Radiation levels at every plant are monitored

24-hours-a-day. The following are some data onthe radiation health effects of people living nearNuclear Power Plants.

(Display RADIATION-RELATED HEALTHEFFECTS FROM LIVING NEAR NUCLEARPOWER PLANTS overhead.)

The NRC: “...the risk of early and latentfatalities from individual nuclear powerplants is small. It represents only a smallfraction of the risk to which the public isexposed from other sources. Even if thepredicted early and latent fatalities from all118 plants were considered (that is, the riskto the population of the United States fromall 118 nuclear power plants), this wouldonly result in a predicted risk of approxi-mately one additional early fatality per yearand approximately 30 additional latentfatalities per year, which is still a small frac-tion of the approximately 100,000 earlyand 500,000 latent cancer fatalities per yearfrom other sources.”

In 1990, the National Cancer Institute(NCI) of the National Institutes of Healthreleased the results of a two-year study ofcancer data in 107 U.S. counties that con-tained, or were adjacent to, major nuclearfacilities that had started up before 1982.The study, which compared cancer mortali-ty rates in the 107 counties with rates incounties with no nuclear facilities, foundno increased cancer mortality for peopleliving near the nuclear installations.

[Note: As of early 2001, 104 nuclear powerplants were operating in the United States.]

SAY: But what if an explosion or meltdown ata nuclear power plant suddenly releaseddeadly amounts of radiation or radioac-tive materials into the environment.Even the most adamant nuclear propo-nent must admit that a major reactoraccident cannot be ruled out for thenuclear plants operating today. The keyquestions are when will the next reactoraccident occur and where will it occur?

(Display NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACCI-DENT PROBABILITIES AND CONSE-QUENCES overhead.)

The NRC told the U.S. Congress in April1985 that: “The most complete and recentprobabilistic risk assessments suggest coremelt frequencies in the range of [one in onethousand] per reactor year to [one in tenthousand] per reactor year. A typical valueis [three in ten thousand]. Were this theindustry average, then in a population of100 reactors operating over a period of 20years, the crude cumulative probability of [asevere reactor] accident would be 45%.”

A 1982 Congressional study estimated thepotential consequences from reactor acci-dents that release large amounts of radia-tion in the atmosphere. They assumed thatthe reactor core damage occurred (i.e. melt-down) and that the containment buildingsfailed to prevent the release of radiation.The study estimated how many Americanswould die and be injured within the firstyear due to their radiation exposure follow-ing a major accident. For example, thestudy concluded that an accident at theLimerick nuclear plant outside Philadelphiacould kill 74,000 people within the firstyear and cause 34,000 subsequent cancerdeaths. Another 610,000 people couldexperience radiation-related injuries such ascataracts, temporary sterility, and thyroidnodules. The study estimated that an acci-dent at Limerick could cost $200 billion forlost wages, relocation expenses, and decont-amination efforts.

SAY: The following table provides a summaryof the results.

(Display POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OFNUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACCIDENTSoverhead.)

SAY: The consequences vary because largerplants can release more radiation thansmaller plants, because some plants arelocated near large population centers,and because different engineered safetysystems may perform differently.

2. Nuclear Accident Scenario

SAY: We are going to do a decision-makingexercise based on a nuclear power plantaccident scenario. I want you to makeyour decisions and justify them solelyupon the information provided to you inthe handout.

ASK: What are the factors we must take intoaccount when calculating risk quantitatively?

Answer: Probability that an event will occurand the consequence if the event were to occur.Risk = Probability X Consequence.

ASSIGNMENT: Distribute copies ofNUCLEAR ACCIDENT SCENARIO handout.When students have had time to complete thescenario, have them share their answers with aneighbor. Then ask some students to share theiranswers with the class.

ASK: In the event of an accident that couldpotentially pose a threat to you, whatother factors would you take intoaccount when determining our risk?Recall the quote by Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “Mostpeople think dramatically, not quantitatively.”

Answer: Information from media sources,experts, etc; our gut instincts.

(end day four)

3.Three-Mile Island

SAY: This scenario is based upon an actualevent that occurred at the Three-MileIsland Nuclear Power Plant nearHarrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 28,1979. Other than the quantitative riskdata, the information, while not directly



D.MakingDecisionsBased UponCalculation ofRisk

42

quoted, reflects what the public wasexposed to during the Three-Mile Islandaccident. Of the approximately300,000 people impacted, half evacuat-ed, half stayed. As a result, public anxi-ety about nuclear power was height-ened. In the next activity, we are goingto examine the aftermath of TMI.

ASSIGNMENT: Distribute copies of THREE-MILE ISLAND CONSEQUENCES handout.When students have had time to complete theassignment, have them share their answers witha neighbor. Then ask some students to sharetheir answers with the class.

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

D.MakingDecisions

Based UponCalculation of

Risk

43


ERisk Analysis Culminating Activity


45

(Display the MEETING NOTICE overhead atthe beginning of class.)

SAY: The local power company has filed anapplication with the federal governmentto build a nuclear power plant in yourtown. Federal regulators have called ahearing to gather information on theapplication. You represent an independ-ent, nongovernmental agency called theRisk Analysis Institute. You have beenhired by the city to provide the resi-dents with credible, trustworthy guid-ance on the risks associated with operat-ing a nuclear power plant. Your goal isnot to recommend a position for oragainst the nuclear power plant, but toguide citizens to make that decisionbased upon fact rather than based uponfear. To fulfill your contract, you mustcomplete the following two tasks:

1. Design a pamphlet that can be distributedto every resident. You must be able to communicate quantitative risk information,as well as address psychological factors thatshape people’s perceptions of the risk.

2. Prepare an opening presentation for thepublic meeting. Merely disseminatinginformation without regard for communi-cating the complexities and uncertaintiesof risk does not necessarily ensure effectiverisk communication. Well-managed efforts

will help ensure that your messages are constructively formulated, transmitted, andreceived and that they result in meaningfulactions.

SAY: Although your work at the RiskAnalysis Institute is to provide credible,trustworthy guidance on the risks associ-ated with operating a nuclear powerplant, you are not sheltered from theinfluence of public opinion. You willreceive letters, press releases, andreports from organizations advocatingpositions for and against nuclear power.Your job is to separate facts from fearsand present the information provided ina rational manner.

(Distribute the PRO AND CON STATE-MENTS ON NUCLEAR POWER handouts.)

NOTE TO TEACHER: You may choose to useall these documents or to only select a few ofthese documents for students to consider.Perhaps you may choose to distribute the docu-ments gradually as daily news releases, ratherthan all at once. Use your discretion here. Inaddition to the information provided, please donot hesitate to supplement or substitute thedocuments provided with other sources andother media to clarify positions for and againstnuclear power.

NOTE TO TEACHER: This project isdesigned as a collaborative effort for up to fourstudents per group. The following rubric sug-gests how you might evaluate students on theircollaborative effort:

1. Student willingly participates in group activity, volunteers for active roles, encourages sharing of ideas and opinions.

RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

E.Risk AnalysisCulminating

Activity

MEETING NOTICE

There will be a meeting of government regulators nextMonday. The purpose of this meeting is to gather infor-mation for or against the application to build nuclearpower plants in our town. The application has been madeby the Yourtown Power Company. All interested partiesare invited.

2. Student needs encouragement to participate, stays on task, accepts role within group, shares ideas with others.

3. Student requires prompting to work with the group, must be reminded to stay on task, accepts team role, grudgingly shares ideas.

4. Student is uninvolved with the efforts of the group, does not focus on the task, refuses to accept role within the group, does not share ideas.

The content of the students’ work should beevaluated based upon the guidelines set forth in the assignment handout.ASSIGNMENT: Distribute copies of RISKANALYSIS INSTITUTE handout.

NOTE TO TEACHER: The handout A PRE-SENTATION PRIMER serves as a useful toolfor evaluating the group presentations. If youchoose to use it, distribute it to students aheadof time so that they are clear about how theywill be evaluated.

NOTE TO TEACHER: After groups havegiven their presentations, compare and contrastapproaches used by the groups. Determine ifsome approaches were more successful than oth-ers. Ask the students to generate a “do” and“don’t” list when communicating risk to thepublic. Compare students’ responses to thoseaddressed in the handout AVOIDING PRESEN-TATION PITFALLS. Of the many “pitfalls”mentioned, address those most relevant to thestudents’ work.

(end day five)


RiskAnalysisLessonPlan

E.Risk AnalysisCulminatingActivity

46

FAssessment


RiskAnalysis

LessonPlan

F. Assessment

47

ASSIGNMENT: Distribute copies of the RISK ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT handout. Relate the following statements to what youhave learned about assessing risks associatedwith nuclear power and radiation. For eachstatement, write a short essay. Use specificexamples from activities that we did in classand from your own research outside of class.

1. Risk analysis is used to minimize the likeli-hood of unwanted side effects of a newtechnology. The public perception of riskmay depend, however, on psychological aswell as scientific factors. (Benchmarks forScience Literacy, page 52)

2. Natural and human induced hazards pres-ent the need for humans to assess potentialdanger and risk. Many changes in theenvironment designed by humans bringbenefits to society, as well as cause risks.Students should understand the costs andtradeoffs of various hazards – ranging fromthose with minor risk to a few people tomajor catastrophes with major risk to manypeople. The scale of events and accuracywith which scientists and engineers canand cannot predict events are importantconsiderations. (National ScienceEducation Standards, page 199)

3. Individuals and society must decide uponproposals involving new research and theintroduction of new technologies into soci-ety. Decisions involve assessment of alter-natives, risks, costs, and benefits, and con-sideration of who benefits and who suffers,who pays and who gains, and what the risksare and who bears them. Students shouldunderstand the appropriateness and valueof basic questions – “What can happen” –

“What are the odds” – and “How do scien-tists and engineers know what will hap-pen?” (National Science EducationStandards, page 199)

4. View science and technology thoughtfully,being neither categorically antagonistic noruncritically positive. (Benchmarks forScience Literacy, page 287)

Appendices


Appendix A:

Additional Suggestions forClassroom Activities

• Introduce radiation and discuss students’perceptions. Write "Radiation" on theblackboard and ask the students to say orwrite down (anonymously) on an indexcard what they think of when they think ofradiation, what they think it means. Writedown some of the answers or collect thecards and read some out loud and discussthe students’ perceptions.

• Discuss health effects of radiation.Discuss some of the health effects from radi-ation including effects from acute high-doseexposure and low-dose exposure. Examinesome of the results of long-term studies ofvictims of the Hiroshima and Nagasakibombings or of workers in nuclear weaponsfacilities in the United States. Invite ahealth physicist or doctor to speak.

• Discuss professions that involve the use ofradiation. Briefly discuss (or review) someof the uses of radiation (power generation,medicine, industry, national security) andthen introduce a more specific discussion ofprofessions involving the use of radiation.(See Appendix B.) Ask the students toresearch careers through some of the profes-sional associations. Invite professionalsworking in these areas to come to class todiscuss their jobs and their careers.

• Discuss some of the uses of radiation inindustry and consumer products. Beginwith a discussion of some of the uses of radi-ation that students may be more familiarwith such as medical and dental X-rays.Also discuss some of the uses that may beless familiar such as in exit signs and smokedetectors or in industry to identify defects

in airplane equipment, to manufactureTeflon coated pans, and to ensure consis-tent size of sheets of various materials andconsistent amount of contents of beverage cans.

• Locate nuclear power plants near you.Identify nuclear power plants in your regionand discuss issues such as: How much of thearea’s energy do they provide? What type ofreactors are used? How long has it beenoperating? How long is it expected to con-tinue operating? If possible, visit the facilityor invite a representative to speak to theclass. A listing of plants is available fromthe Department of Energy’s EnergyInformation Administration athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html.Maps and detailed information are availablethrough the Nuclear Energy Institute athttp://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=93.

• Have a debate on the pros and cons ofnuclear power. Have the students researchand analyze various aspects of nuclear powerversus other sources of energy includingsuch things as cost (including decommis-sioning and decontamination of nuclearplants and nuclear waste disposal), potentialrisk, environmental impact, public accept-ability, and sustainability.

• Conduct research on incidents of acciden-tal releases. Assign the students a researchactivity to study incidents of accidentalrelease of radiation. Have them prepare areport on the history, immediate effects,repairs, long-term consequences (for indi-viduals and for society), etc. of the inci-dent(s). Invite a local firefighter or emer-gency response professional to discuss howthe local community prepares to respond topotential radiological emergencies.

49

Appendix A:

AdditionalSuggestions forClassroomActivities


Appendix B:

Examples of Careers that Involvethe Use of Radiation

Health Physicist: This term originated duringthe Manhattan Project—the United States’effort to develop the atomic bomb during WorldWar II. Most of the scientists involved in thatproject were physicists. Those physicists respon-sible for health and safety concerns were calledhealth physicists. Today health physicists can befound at work at nuclear power plants, on mili-tary submarines, in hospitals (where they arecalled medical physicists), and at research uni-versities, to name just a few. Health physicsprovides the practical means for protectingworkers, the general public, and the environ-ment from harmful radiation exposures.

Health physicists work in a variety of disci-plines, including research, industry, education,environmental protection, and enforcement ofgovernment regulations. Some examples follow.

• In research, health physicists investigateprinciples by which radiation interacts withmatter and living systems. Health physicistsalso study environmental levels of radioac-tivity and the effects of radiation on biolog-ical systems on earth and in space.

• Industrial or applied health physicists makerecommendations to management regardingmethods and equipment for use in radiationwork.

• Health physicists working in educationdevelop training programs for and instructfuture health physicists. They also providetraining for radiation workers and the general public.

• Health physicists also help develop andenforce government regulations.

• Medical health physicists work whereverradiation sources are used such as hospitals,clinics, and laboratories. They help ensureproper and safe working conditions for bothpatients and medical staff.

• Nuclear weapons health physicists areresponsible for radiation safety at defensesites that store and assemble nuclearweapons. Their responsibilities includemeasuring and calculating radiation dose

rates from nuclear weapons, identifyingappropriate personal protective equipment(e.g., lead aprons, lead-lined gloves) forweapons technicians and ensuring that suf-ficient shielding is provided in the work-place for technicians.

• Environmental health physicists work toprotect the public and environment fromunnecessary exposure to manmade andtechnologically enhanced naturally occur-ring radioactivity. Activities include envi-ronmental monitoring for radioactivity.

Radiobiologist: Radiobiologists work in a spe-cialized branch of biology that studies the effectsof ionizing radiation on cells and organisms. Thework of radiobiologists contributes significantlyto our understanding of how radiation can causecancer, genetic effects, and damage to fetuses.

Radiochemist: Radiochemists practice a branchof chemistry that uses a combination of standardanalytical techniques ("wet chemistry") alongwith sophisticated radiation measurement tech-niques to understand chemical reactions and thestructure of chemical compounds.

Radioecologist: Radioecologists and other envi-ronmental scientists help determine howradioactive material is transported through thephysical environment (i.e., ground, water, andair) and through ecosystems (e.g., throughbioaccumulation). The information they providecan be critical in setting safe clean-up levels atcontaminated sites and protective public healthstandards.

Nuclear Physician: Nuclear physicians usuallywork in universities or hospitals, or both, andhave limited involvement in direct patient care.Nuclear medicine physicians assist with patientdiagnoses and treatment, when the use of radio-logical examination and treatments are appropriate.

Nuclear Medicine Technologist: The nuclearmedicine technologist is a specialized healthcareprofessional who works directly with patientsduring an imaging procedure and works closelywith the nuclear medicine physician.

Nuclear Pharmacist: A nuclear pharmacist spe-cializes in the procurement, compounding, qual-ity control testing, dispensing, distribution, andmonitoring of radiopharmaceuticals. They alsoprovide consultation regarding health and safetyissues as well as the use of non-radioactive drugsand patient care.

50

Appendix B:

Examples ofCareers thatInvolve the Useof Radiation


Radiation Protection Technologist: A radia-tion protection technologist engages in theoperational aspects of providing radiation pro-tection. This individual is concerned with thebasic understanding of the mechanisms of radia-tion damage, with the methods and proceduresnecessary to evaluate hazards and with provid-ing protection to man and his environmentfrom unwarranted radiation exposure.

Emergency Response Professional: Manyemergency response professionals (including firefighters and hazmat responders) are specificallytrained and prepared to respond to radiologicalemergencies.

Nuclear Power Plant Professional: There arenumerous careers involved with the operationand management of nuclear power facilities:

• Nuclear Engineers work to ensure that thereactor core is configured and assembledcorrectly—according to the laws of reactorphysics and heat transfer fluid dynamics—to use the nuclear fuel most efficiently andsafely while producing energy.

• Mechanical Engineers monitor and supervisesystems areas involving heat transfer andfluid flow including supervising the designof machinery.

• Electrical Engineers oversee the electricalsystems in the plant and the operation ofthe turbine generators which convert ener-gy to electric power that will be transmittedto customers.

• Chemical Engineers/Chemists are responsiblefor maintaining the proper chemistry of theprimary system—water flowing through thereactor—and other cooling and heatremoval systems so that corrosion is kept toa minimum.

• Civil/Structural Engineers ensure the physicalintegrity of the plant structures, includingthe containment building and radiationshielding for the nuclear reactor.

• Power Reactor Health Physicists are responsi-ble for all phases of radiation protection ata reactor site. Selecting, purchasing, andmaintaining radiation protection, laborato-ry, and detection equipment are some oftheir responsibilities.

• Reactor Operators are licensed operatorswho are responsible for operating a reactor's

controls. Qualifying as a reactor operatorusually requires five years experience as anon-licensed operator, one year of training,and successful completion of a NRC exam.

• Operations Engineers analyze plant perform-ance and prepare operating procedures forthe plant's components, systems and reac-tor.

• Maintenance Engineers keep plant machin-ery in optimal condition to ensure reliableplant operation. They also conduct equip-ment failure analysis and recommend cor-rective actions to improve reliability.

• Information Systems Professionals oversee thecomputer operations support for a nuclearpower plant. The computer operations at anuclear plant are the most complicated ofany electricity generating facility.

Sources: Health Physics Society – http://www.hps.org/pub-licinformation/hpcareers.htmlNuclear Energy Institute – www.nei.orgSociety of Nuclear Medicine’s –http://www.snm.org/education/index.htmlU.S. Environmental Protection Agency –http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/index.html

Appendix B:

Examples ofCareers that

Involve the Useof Radiation

51

National Safety Council’s Environmental Health Center1025 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20036202/293-2270

http://www.nsc.org/ehc.htm

understanding radiation in our world

Documents