[ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc.

Brennan, Mike (DOH) Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Fri Jul 11 11:03:57 CDT 2008

James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION!  The word "current" is in there.  I
didn't put it in there; you did.  Current, as I pointed out, means now.
Not "expected".  If the question you wanted to ask is "What is the mean
expected rate of U238 seeping from the spent fuel storage pools at
reactor facilities in undisclosed locations over some undisclosed time
period?"  I would have told you that the question is almost meaningless,
but that if we are talking about commercial facilities in the United
States and the last, say, 40 years, the rate is zero out to several
decimal places.  If you have evidence of U238 seeping from storage
pools, present it.  I do not thing that you do.

You're repeated attempts to change the question because you don't like
the answer does not make you appear to be right: it simply demonstrates
you are wrong in greater detail.

-----Original Message-----
From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:09 AM
To: radsafelist; bcradsafers at hotmail.com; Steven Dapra;
garyi at trinityphysics.com; Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc.

Mike Brennan errs:

> The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage 
> from the storage facilities?"  ... So, your question was "What is the 
> amount of U238 per day...."

I asked nothing about "per day" or any other denomination of time.
Even if I had, the mean expected rate is not zero.

Gary Isenhower gets it a third-right:

> James is ... not launching his attacks from reality as we know it.

Everyone who has been told as they have been time and time again, by the
IAEA, 10 CFR 20, and the militaries of the world, that insoluble forms
of uranium are more hazardous than soluble forms has been the victim of
a lie.  Those are the ones whose ability to make rational decisions have
been attacked by the lies -- six orders of magnitude -- impeding their
ability to make clear and correct safety and policy decisions.  Time is
not going to change this.

> He's coming from a reality in which DU is a kind of evil conspiracy

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by negligence.

Steven Dapra has an interesting view:

>  All weapons act off the battlefield.

Dapra believes, "with God all things are possible" -- including anything
that Dapra wants to make up because international law is not convenient
enough for the rhetorical bed that he has made for himself.

Bjorn Cedervall revises his question:

> my request: References that show that radiation induced damage to a 
> germ cell line was transferred to the next generation....

Radiation induced?  Because Miller's unchallenged evidence that the
chemical mutagenicity and teratogenicity from one of the few ions used
by microscopists to stain DNA is a million times worse would just make
too much work for the health physics industry if they had to believe it?

Sadly, Dr. Cedervall is as bad as all the rest when it comes to telling
the truth:

>  I referred only to germ cells. -- 
> http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010594.html

See for yourself:

> Teratogenesis is about somatic cells - not germ cells! -- 
> http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html

If health physicists want to make the world safe for nuclear power, they
have to start with the veracity of the person in the mirror.

James Salsman

More information about the RadSafe mailing list