AW: [ RadSafe ] BAD INFORMATION

[Steven Dapra]

Nov. 15

         Colossians 4:6.

Steven Dapra


At 07:01 PM 11/15/08 +0100, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
>George,
>
>Having been interested in nuclear bomb topics since many years I find your
>comment unacceptable, sloppy and simply unbelievable, that somebody who
>obviously regards himself as a member of the community of radiation
>protection professionals distributes something like this on the RADSAFE
>list. Following your reasoning it must have been really funny to have been a
>victim of the Hiroshima bombing! Fission products can still be measured in
>Hiroshima as well as those from fallout. Could you give some sources for
>your unbelievable comment? There are more than enough who show facts
>contrary to your caimed ones. Interesting to read, that there is no local
>fallout - again please give sources for this nonsensicle claim? I have been
>the leader of the terrestrial working group of the International Mururoa
>Project on the Nuclear Tests of France in the South Pacific - what a
>surprise we found quite a lot of fission products on the atolls of Mururoa
>and Fangataufa. How can you dare to say, that there is no local fallout in a
>nuclear bomb explosion? (They were all of the type you call "air burst" and
>even more they were not above ground but above the lagoon. No "local
>fallout"? You are kidding!!!! - which is true for your claim that one need
>not worry, if one is not wounded. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were ground
>level bursts - don't you know that?
>
>I would really recommend that  y o u  get the facts straight. Read about the
>hundreds of thousands victims of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings
>and then stop distributing the nonsense you did. With my disdain for your
>unbelievable opinions
>
>Franz
>
>Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
>MinRat i.R.
>Habicherg. 31/7
>A-1160 Wien/Vienna
>AUSTRIA
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
>von George Stanford
>Gesendet: Freitag, 14. November 2008 23:01
>An: Peterson, Ken
>Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] BAD INFORMATION
>
>Ken:
>
>          The problem is somewhat more subtle.  The old brochures you
>link to clearly are bald-faced attempts to make the public think
>nuclear war is like a romp in the park.  However, while the sheets
>are simplistic in the extreme, and seriously misleading, all the
>statements are, in a literal sense, accurate.
>
>- "By the time the debris stops falling, there is no radiation
>hazard."  The statement is true. It is made in the context of a
>Hiroshima-type "air burst" (one in which the fireball does not touch
>the ground).  In such a case, all the radioactive fission products
>are carried upward -- there is no local fallout.  There is a small
>amount of radioactivity induced by neutrons near ground zero, but
>it's too low to be of concern, especially in a wartime context.
>
>-  "In most cases, if you are not wounded or burned, you need not
>worry about radiation."  This also is true, for the same reason.
>
>- "Or radiation exposure from airbursts can be avoided by maneuvering
>your ship or vehicle."  Certainly false, as you phrase it -- but the
>pamphlet doesn't say that.  If you read the footnote more carefully,
>you will see that the context is the aftermath of a ground-level
>burst -- so the footnote, while it might not be relevant, is
>literally accurate -- under the unlikely assumption, that is, that
>you know where the fallout has landed (covering perhaps many square
>miles) so that you can drive around it (good luck!).
>
>          Being from the late 40s or early 50s, presumably, those
>simplistic propaganda sheets assumed relatively small, Hiroshima-size
>(~15 kiloton) bombs.  They would be even more misleading (although
>still literally true) in these days of much larger, even more
>destructive, weapons.
>
>          Nuclear weapons are nasty, but we still need to get our
>facts straight.
>
>          Cheers,
>
>          George Stanford
>          Reactor physicist, retired
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>At 11:21 AM 11/14/2008, Peterson, Ken wrote:
>It is interesting to note how the US Government publishes erroneous
>information in the 1950's, and it STILL impacts the military and public
>today.  It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  Note that: "By the
>time the debris stops falling, there is no radiation hazard.", "In most
>cases, if you are not wounded or burned, you need not worry about
>radiation."  Or radiation exposure from airbursts can be avoided by
>maneuvering your ship or vehicle.....

[edit]