[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 540, Issue 1

[Harrison, Tony]

Well, here's one reference

Radiation Research 164(4):409-419. 2005 
doi: 10.1667/RR3423.1

Radiation Exposure due to Local Fallout from Soviet Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing in Kazakhstan: Solid Cancer Mortality in the Semipalatinsk Historical Cohort, 1960-1999
Susanne Bauer1ac, Boris I. Gusevb, Ludmila M. Pivinab, Kazbek N. Apsalikovb, and Bernd Groschea

There has actually been a some speculation that the dramatic rise in lung cancer in the 60's and 70's was directly tied to the increase in radioactive material in the air beginning in 1945, and that subsequent reductions in cancer incidence is tied just as directly to the test ban treaty of 1963.The hypothesis would be nearly impossible to prove, and as far as I know, no one has made any attempt to conduct a worldwide analysis.

I'd like to point out, however, that this is almost exactly the sort of data that Radsafers are so happy to point to when discussing background radiation and cancer incidence in Colorado.

I love the way we can always find data to support our prejudices.

Tony Harrison, MSPH
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Laboratory Services Division





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?