[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[Doug Aitken]

OK, I'll bite....

1) you apparently missed my point that a lack of information in a particular repository does not imply that this information was "suppressed"....

2) you now make the wonderfully illogical statement: " 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?".... 
So to use a particularly favorite tactic of yours: where is the evidence of this? And how have you connected these topics? In fact, it has been stated on this forum that the fly-ash of coal-fired power stations contains a reasonably high content of naturally-occurring radionuclides (to the point that it has been suggested that this fly-ash represents an interesting source of such nuclides: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html ).

As for your contention that "I don't think nuclear power has ever been as economical as wind power and (pumped storage) hydroelectricity", I would counter by asking in what sense is wind power economical as a baseline supply of electricity? And is not hydroelectric power somewhat geographically challenged? And has France bankrupted itself by relying on nuclear power for the great majority of its electric power needs? 

Regards
Doug
PS: apologies to the list for extending this discussion.......

___________________________________
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: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:28 PM
To: Doug Aitken
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

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