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

[Steven Dapra]

Feb. 13

         Will there be a luxury tax on imported Belgian (Congo) radon?

Steven Dapra


At 07:13 PM 2/12/2011, you wrote:
>One can't forget about that evil Radon as well. Looks like there is 
>lots of it around Niagara Falls.
>http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/zonemapcolor.pdf
>
>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
>
>Jeff Terry
>Asst. Professor of Physics
>Life Science Bldg Rm 166
>Illinois Institute of Technology
>3101 S. Dearborn St.
>Chicago IL 60616
>630-252-9708
>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"