[ RadSafe ] Citation requested for "How tough is it to build..." C. Bradt

Jeff Terry terryj at iit.edu
Sat Feb 12 20:13:12 CST 2011

One can't forget about that evil Radon as well. Looks like there is lots of it around Niagara Falls. 

All that Niagara Falls radon must have been formed by that atmospheric testing as well since it would be difficult for anyone to have transported it all from Gabon. 

Wait a minute, while I have not calculated the exact amount of Radon that could have been formed due to all of the atmospheric testing, looking at the map it appears that not enough nuclear tests were conducted to account for the quantity of Radon found in the U. S. Maybe we should report this to homeland security, if radioactive materials are only found in Africa someone must be transporting Radon from Africa to the US. Would that not qualify as a terrorist attack?

Oh the humanity, if only radioactive materials were natural in places other than the previous Belgian Congo. 


Jeff Terry
Asst. Professor of Physics
Life Science Bldg Rm 166
Illinois Institute of Technology
3101 S. Dearborn St. 
Chicago IL 60616
terryj at iit.edu

On Feb 12, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Steven Dapra wrote:

> Feb. 12
> Lou:
>        Give it up.  Are we all dying of cancer that was caused by atmospheric testing?  Is or has anyone?
>        Permit me to inform you that uranium (for example) is found in other countries than the former Belgian Congo.  It's in the US, in New Mexico, near Grants.  Lots of U around Grants.
> Steven Dapra
> At 11:52 AM 2/12/2011, you wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Bradt:
>> Are you referring to the open atmospheric tests in general, or do you have
>> a specific citation for the comment you left below ("thousands of
>> radioactive  dispersal devices tested in the atmosphere")?
>> Were these devices being tested in specific to gauge their potential for
>> the spread of contamination or, as a general outcome of the tests conducted
>> between the dates provided?
>> At what point in specific would "deadly" be an actual reference word used
>> to accurately denote a certain level of contamination? Any numbers?
>> "Too broad to be effective" -- in the atmosphere? What about ground born
>> contact (ingestion, inhalation, etc) from fallout deposition, rainout etc...?
>> Was the end game intention of testing to be "effective" at creating a
>> health  hazard? Or, am I taking this out of your context. Would you please
>> explain?
>> A "pun"? -- I don't think that DHS is taking this potential danger as a
>> pun. Do you actually think so?
>> "The level of disruption created would be a function of the clean-up levels
>> and disposal
>> requirements likely to be imposed by politicians and their  toadies, not by
>> the actual health hazards posed."
>> Do "politicians and their toadies" include all regulators and employees of
>> the aforementioned within a political system such as say: state level
>> "health" and or "environmental" departments and their employees? Or, is there
>> some sort of a segregation that I'm not aware of?  ;)
> [edit]
>> And, since  these are not natural materials to the planet at all except
>> perhaps in the  previous Belgian Congo, is this a good thing in your mind?
>> Any clarification(s) as an employee of NYS DoH would be greatly
>> appreciated.
>> ==
>> lou  ricciuti,
>> researcher, author,
>> Niagara Falls - Lewiston - Porter, New  York,
>> * "Los Alamos East"
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list