[ RadSafe ] uranium and breast cancer

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Two things.  

First, if we are going to treat www.picassodreams.com as a credible reference, then my dog 
should be admitted as a credible reference also.  Since my dog has indicated to me that the 
website in question is not reliable, we need not examine their claims further.

Second, James is not actually at line 050 of the DU circus loop.  He's gone past 050, headed 
backwards, and is now at line 030.  I'll render it backwards so you can see where he's 
headed:

 050 James give a link to a blog/email/newspaper quote.
 040 Radsafe presses for citations.
 030 James implies that Radsafe should prove (X).
 
Did UKAEA make some obscure statement, as claimed by the blog he cites? Lets see, We 
can (A) do James' work for him, or (B) go back to real work that has some basis in reality.

Tough choice, but I think I'll go with (B) this time.

 -Gary Isenhower



On 3 Jun 2008 at 9:48, James Salsman wrote:
> This is line 050 of Gary's pseudocode, but on topic:
> 
> "... at the end of the first Gulf War, the United Kingdom Atomic
> Energy Authority estimated that 50 tons remained in Iraq, and that
> amount could be responsible for 500,000 cancer deaths by the year
> 2000." --
> http://www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/2008/05/depleted-uraniu.ht
> ml
> 
> Did the UKAEA actually say that?
> 
> It is neither naïve nor ridiculous to demand accountability in
> government safety standards.  What is ridiculous is to imply that
> Congressional hearings would be detrimental to accuracy.  If Mike
> Brennan has any evidence that government investigation is not strongly
> correlated with an increase in accuracy, he will need to present it to
> keep from seeming to advance that ridiculous position.
> 
> Steven Dapra wants to know whether I have read Domingo's 2001 review.
> I have, and I will gladly read it again if he or I find it necessary.
> 
> Ref.:
> http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-June/date.html#10139
> 
> James Salsman