[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[Doug Huffman]

In re windpower; the avoided cost of electricity here on this isolated 
Island is US$0.06 per KiloWatt-hour, that is the cost of electrical 
power only without the infrastructure costs.  You do the arithmetic.

As to the rest of your assertions, you are making the assertions, it is 
your burden to prove them but not ours to disprove them.

On 4/6/2010 14:27, James Salsman wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>