[ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment

Doug Aitken jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com
Mon Sep 8 09:35:16 CDT 2008

Clayton: I am in agreement with Barb, but I don't think it was really HP's
who pushed this, but rather the people trolling for fat government contracts
(lobbyists and manufacturers - and maybe the odd research lab looking for

Doug Aitken     Cell phone: 713-562-8585
QHSE Advisor
D&M Operations Support           
Schlumberger Technology Corporation
300 Schlumberger Drive
Sugar Land TX 77030

Home office: 713-797-0919  Home Fax: 713-797-1757

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Clayton J Bradt
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:50 AM
To: BLHamrick at aol.com
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment

Yes, Barb. Once again we are in agreement.  Those of us who tried to
explain the futility of trying to detect and identify RDDs and nukes at the
borders were drowned out by other (otherwise competent ) HPs who saw a
chance to make a buck (or promote their careers) by dangling the
possibility of a technological
silver bullet that would make everybody safe.  Of course they didn't put it
exactly that way, but they shaped the message so that the politicians
thought that's what they heard.

This is nothing knew. It's the way the world works. But let's be clear that
those on this list who promoted this an other related boondoggles, and most
of the rest who simply kept silent, bear responsibility for it.

Clayton J. Bradt
duchtbradt at hughes.net

             BLHamrick at aol.com                                             
             09/05/2008 11:22                                           To 
             PM                        cjb01 at health.state.ny.us,           
                                       radsafe at radlab.nl                   
                                       Re: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could      
                                       Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment  

In a message dated 9/5/2008 6:23:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cjb01 at health.state.ny.us writes:
Any competent- and honest HP- could have foretold this.  There is no
technological solution to nuclear terrorism.
As long as there are vendors and careerists willing to tell lawmakers and
political apparatchiks what they want to hear,
the warnings of those of us who know better will continue to be drowned

Shame on all those who made a buck from this boondoggle!


Actually, a lot of competent HPs did tell them this, but they were
determined not to listen.  We are living Orwell's "1984," with the endless
shifting "war on terror," and the use of fear to control, but it's like no
one ever read the book.

And, to avoid sounding partisan about this, democrats are no better than
the republican fearmongers.  In California (controlled by a democratic
legislature) this session they passed a bill to do biomonitoring (or some
such nonsense) for carcinogens, at a cost of God knows what (because their
fiscal assessments are generally worthless).  HELLO!  The five most
significant cancer promoters/indicators are 1) smoking, 2) drinking, 3)
diet, 4) lack of exercise, and 5) genetics.  The contribution of
environmental insults is nothing in the big scheme of things.  OTOH, I
don't want them to get anymore crazy ideas about controlling our personal
lives.  I would prefer if I could just continue to smoke, drink, eat some
potato chips, and lay on my couch, without the government interfering (I
can't do anything about my bad genes).  And, we're all going to die of
something one day.  So, let's just accept that, and move on.

Seriously.  Could we stop with the hysteria about death?  Yes, I'm afraid
of being in a plane commandeered by terrorists, and yes, I'm afraid of
dying a slow painful death from cancer.  I just think that, in the end,
since we're all going to die anyway, it might be better to spend our
capital frugally on improving the quality of all our lives, rather than
spending it recklessly to try to extend the quantity, which will in the end
be finite no matter what we do.  But, politically, saying you're against
death, in whatever form, is a winning ticket.

This is the problem we have with radiation.  In the public's mind:
Radiation = Death.  What they don't get is that: Chocolate = Death, Beer =
Death, Grandma's faulty genes = Death, Laying around watching TV all day =
Death, and, in the end, even exercising and eating right = Death, because
we all die.

Just my two cents.

Barbara L. Hamrick, Esq., CHP

Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the
latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or
otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.  It is intended only for
the addressee.  If you received this in error or from someone who was not
authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or
any attachments.  Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list