[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[Doug Aitken]

James;
Your note below does not make any sense to me.

You pose a rhetorical question about the suppression of information in the
Health Physics Society literature about the toxicity of uranium.  

And your apparent reason is that you have found multiple documents in other
(medical literature) sources regarding the topic, but only two documents
related to this in the HPS database.

I would like to point out that finding only two mentions in HPS
documentation on a topic of interest to you in no logical way represents a
"suppression of information" (unless you see a conspiracy in every corner of
the universe against your particular beliefs.....).

I would, of course accept it if you had stated "a paucity of
information".....

And I would remind you that this list is not entirely made up of "nuclear
power proponents" and also point out that the great leap of illogical
connection between coal ash, the nuclear fuel chain and the use of depleted
uranium as pyrophoric incendiary munitions just emphasizes your agenda....

Regards
Doug
___________________________________
Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor
D&M Operations Support
jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com
Mail: c/o Therese Wigzell,
Schlumberger,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 12:52 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

I would like to know what RadSafe list members think the expected
behavior and correct course of action should be when we see someone
acting as an expert in a professional capacity making statements about
serious health risks which are at wide variance with the secondary
peer reviewed medical literature.

My disagreement with Gary Isenhower concerned these sources about the
incidence of cancer rates in uranium miners:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/9/1410
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p305-309mulloy/mulloy-full.html
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/23/1481
http://sfaa.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=i
ssue,8,11;journal,65,231;linkingpublicationresults,1:113218,1
http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200003000-00008.htm

Gary denied that such information had been suppressed in the Health
Physics Society literature about the toxicity of uranium.  I've
checked; the literature reviews agree with those sources, and there
aren't any peer reviewed reports that disagree with them.  Here are
the HPS sources people are likely to find when searching the HPS web
site on information about the health effects of uranium:

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q754.html - by Dr. Raabe

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2590.html - by Dr. Kathren

What is the correct and proper course of action in this case?

Why do nuclear power proponents not accurately represent the
scientific literature on this topic, which is far more pertinent to
coal ash contamination than it is to any part of the nuclear fuel
chain, except perhaps the use of depleted uranium as pyrophoric
incendiary munitions?

Sincerely,
James Salsman
_______________________________________________
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:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu