[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[James Salsman]

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Doug Aitken
<jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com> wrote:
>
> You pose a rhetorical question about the suppression of information in the
> Health Physics Society literature about the toxicity of uranium.

It is not a rhetorical question.

> 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.

As far as I can tell, there are no documents on the HPS web site which
accurately describe the carcinogenicity of uranium consistent with
what is reported in any peer reviewed literature reviews of the past
four decades.  Can anyone prove me wrong?

> 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....

I wonder what you think my agenda is.  I'm strongly in favor of
research reactors and nuclear reactors for medical isotope production,
but I don't think nuclear power has ever been as economical as wind
power and (pumped storage) hydroelectricity.  I'm strongly opposed to
uranyl contamination, whether it is from coal fly ash, depleted
uranium munitions, or is naturally occurring.  Those are not radical
viewpoints.  In fact, it's possible that individually, they all may be
majority viewpoints.  Is there any evidence they are not?

Is it possible that some in the HPS have become so accustomed to
defending the use of pyrophoric depleted uranium munitions that they
aren't willing or able to articulate the extent to which coal ash
presents a more serious uranium contamination problem than nuclear
reactor waste?

Sincerely,
James Salsman