[ RadSafe ] Citation request II for "How tough is it to build a.." C. Bradt

Sun Feb 13 19:22:38 CST 2011

Now, now boys....

I was addressing Mr. Bradt's comments, seeing as though he is my NYS 
official. Not you guys. Still, I'll try this for the heck of it just in case 
you've both taken work in New York state with the health department in Albany. 
I'll admit I'm a bit dismayed though at your both having such poor reading 
comprehension. If mistaken, please forgive and try again... I'm quite patient 
and understanding.

----
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 18:14:21 -0700
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Citation requested for "How tough is it to
build..." C. Bradt
Message-ID: <.swcp.com>

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"
----

Umm, thanks Steve for that "heads up." You certainly always have my 
permission. I am well aware of the various ore deposits of elements from the 
periodic table, but thanks again anyway. See below. Maybe Jeff can provide you 
with a colorful little fallout/deposition map and then we could assess your 
assertions about health-safety, cancer, mortality, fallout and the like. Till 
then, focus.

----

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 20:13:12 -0600
From: Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Citation requested for "How tough is it to
build..." C. Bradt
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List"   <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <@iit.edu>

"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"
----

Boys:

Who the heck mentioned Rn, U? I didn't mention radon anywhere, did I? But 
you have. 

It's not nice to mock or fool with the DHS...

Jeff, no one believes that any radon was transported anywhere except 
perhaps you. But thanks though for the colorful map. May I quote you on any of the 
above for the record? Eeks and yikes -- as an asst. professor of physics at 
that online technical college you don't really think that about radon do 
you? Please don't teach your students at ITT that. Thanks again though, as my 
kid used the map to color in all the areas with different crayons at Chucky 
Cheese this evening while we waited for our pizza. It was quite satisfying 
to see a young mind grasp this so quickly.

Mixing apples, oranges and dirty bombs are we now? Tsk, tsk. "Oh the 
humanity." Or, If there's a reading comprehension difficulty, I've left my message 
once again below here for a reread. I'm not above offering assistance to 
those that are challenged. Back in the day (non-pc) they were called "slow 
learners." What does radon have to do with the title of the thread? Nothing at 
all. Talk about "alternative energy" -- take your diversionary energies and 
use them for good, would you please.

Perhaps you would both do well to study up on the origins of materials 
being mentioned in the discussion prior to responding to messages left and 
addressed to another.

Sure, this is an open board and as such you are well within you "rights" to 
respond to whatever you wish (blah, blah and so on..) Other than this 
response, I will choose to await the comments of my official, Mr. Bradt. Sorry. 
If, on the other hand you'd like to have an intelligent discussion of these 
subjects, I'd be glad to respond. BTW and yep, I'm quite familiar with the U 
deposits in the US and elsewhere, including the Colorado Plateau. I did a 
research project for the DOE a couple of years ago (I was solicited by them) 
about these exact things with regard to my little hometown, "Los Alamos 
East." It's on file in the EM office there on the plateau. Go check if you wish. 
It was quite good if I do say so myself and there's a wonderful thank you 
letter from them in the file.

FYI, my reference for Mr. Bradt was to this -- you both should understand 
as it's a simple wiki link reference. Please boys. Now try and be good.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

----

To repeat...as it seems I must for some... ;)

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:52:58 EST
From: NiagaraNet at aol.com
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Citation requested for "How tough is it to build..." 
C. Bradt
To: _radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu_ (mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu) 

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? 

----
Mr. Bradt wrote--
"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?  ;)

--

Nope, no mention of radon or uranium there at all now is there boys? I read 
"plutonium" and the products of "fission." Please reread the original 
message that I've provided again.

---
As a refresher, here's Mr. Bradt's original message to the list that I 
responded to, addressing Mr. Bradt.

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:59:33 -0500
From: Clayton J Bradt <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How tough is it to build a dirty bomb?
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: blc at pitt.edu
Message-ID: <@notes.health.state.ny.us>

Between 1945 and sometime in the 1960's there were thousands of 
radioactive dispersal devices tested in the atmosphere.  If anything, the 
dispersal was too broad to be effective.  "Deadly" plutonium and fission 
products can be found pretty much everywhere on the planet's surface.  I 
don't think that the public absorbed much of the lesson taught by these 
events. At least not about widespread contamination.

With regard to the "Weapons of Mass Disruption" pun: 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.  In effect, by far the most damage done 
by an RDD would be entirely self-inflicted. 

Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509
---

As you both can readily see, Mr. Bradt made no mention of U or Rn either. 
How odd of you both to have read it that way.

Cheers and have a good start to your week. I did and thanks for the little 
chuckle. Every little one counts as they too are cumulative.

Lou Ricciuti, 
Niagara Falls - Lewiston-Porter, New York,
"Los Alamos East"
--

Mr. Bradt?