[ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / Miller and McClain, 2007
sjd at swcp.com
Fri Jul 4 13:23:57 CDT 2008
(Steven Dapra's comments interspersed below.)
At 12:08 AM 7/4/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Jeff Terry wrote:
> >.... I would be very
> > surprised to learn that at some point in the last 70 years a pool
> > has suffered a leak due to an accident with a heavy vehicle.
>The cask- and rod assembly-related accidents that have happened almost
>all involve heavy vehicles or other large-frame conveyance. A lot of
>the casks are susceptible to attack because their exact specifications
>are a matter of public record.
Steven Dapra's (SD) comments:
On July 3 James Salsman (JS) wrote, "What is the difference in the
expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools
with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain?"
He began with fuel holding pools. Now, he appears to be squawking
about shipping cask accidents, and is moaning about the possibility of
attacks on shipping casks. James, you can't even stay on the subject, or
you are (apparently) unable to remember what you have asked about. To
remind you, you asked about breaches of spent fuel containment holding ponds.
>Steven Dapra wrote:
> > What is your CV?
>The only pertinent qualification is the ability to read reports
>of actual experiments and compare them to the official work
>product of people such as Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson after
>they scrubbed their reports clean of any mention of reproductive
>toxicity. How much of your taxes were used to call that pathetic
>exercise in censorship "science"?
James, you can't read reports (or refereed papers) and quote from
them properly or construe them properly. This looks like a case of the pot
calling the kettle black. How much of our taxes have been wasted on your
nonsensical delaying tactics and obstructionism at the NRC? And who cares
about "reproductive toxicity" in laboratory rats and mice? I reiterate,
show us your CV. You think you know so much, prove it. (Show us the money.)
> > Answer the question about where you were born.
>Why? I already did. I was born on an Army base (that is what
>the host country called it, as did everyone else when they
>weren't in parade dress.) What difference does it make to
>be any more specific than that?
> > You can also knock off your attacks on Drs. Cherry and Johnson;
> > and on Ron Kathren.
>Does anyone endorse their position of omitting mention of
>reproductive toxicity or other non-kidney-related health effects
>in their reports on uranium toxicity?
Can you show that they *have* omitted it? Has it ever occurred to
you that this reproductive toxicity in lab rats and mice may not have been
germane to the matter under discussion?
> > Look at the first quote from the Miller and McClain paper
> > and you will find they are talking about uranyl *chloride*.
>What do you think the percentage difference in solubility
>would be between the oxide and the chloride of uranyl, as
>the percentage of each in solution after seven days in lung fluid?
My point, James, is that you were talking out of both sides of
your mouth. You derided me for switching around between uranyl acetate and
uranyl oxide, while the Miller and McClain paper you're waving around is
talking about uranyl chloride.
More information about the RadSafe