[ RadSafe ] RDD and How difficult is it to build...et al

Wed Feb 16 05:00:04 CST 2011

Hello again boys and girls!

I hope that all of your work week has so far been as enjoyable as mine!

It seems as if once again there's another bit of confusion and or mistakes 
being made along with that reading comprehension thing I mentioned in a post 
only two/three days ago. I'm really sorry to see Mr. Dapra's memory fade so 
quickly so as to not be able to remember things from such a short time 
period back. Being genuinely concerned, someone should recommend a medical 
checkup to him. 

The Pal-Telegraph article is a "pickup" from American sources that the 
article was submitted to. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Dapra had no purposeful 
intention of misrepresenting that fact and that there is no control over who 
republishes things anywhere in the world once an article gets it's original 
exposure on the WWW -- umm, that's the World Wide Web. This article about the 
radiological contamination of Niagara Falls, New York, city streets was 
submitted to 16 US outlets and from there was picked up elsewhere in the world. It 
wasn't initially published or submitted directly to the Pal-Telegraph as 
Mr. Dapra has mistakenly asserted. Considering the memory span and 
comprehension difficulties that have been shown previously by him, I guess it isn't 
difficult to understand the mix-up now. As I stated before, I'm patient and 
understanding to those who might have learning, reading and or comprehension 
difficulties. Especially patient.

MEMORY SPAN--
As a repeat and repost of the questions addressed to Mr. Bradt of the New 
York State Department of Health as yet to be answered by him, please refer 
back one, two and three Radsafe digests, now only three days ago...
--

Mr. Steve Dapra writes-
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:58:05 -0700
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Uranium and other issues - should we expect
anti-nuclear fallout in Sweden?
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List"   _radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu_ (mailto:radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu) 
<_ at ame7.swcp.com_ (mailto:4 at ame7.swcp.com) >

Feb. 15

......  This is a link ....

This is a link to an article co-authored by Paul Zimmerman 
and Louis Ricciuti.  Remember the latter one?  From "Los Alamos 
East"?  He was shrieking here last week, about what I can't 
recall.  This article was published in the Palestine Telegraph --- no 
fooling, that's where it was published.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/opinions/diaries/8025-radiation-alert-niagara-fa
lls.html

Bjorn, I would recommend not walking but running in the 
opposite direction.

Steven Dapra"

---

I have written in response-
I'd be pleased to supply the list of US outlets from which the Pal-Tel 
article repeat was taken should anyone desire it. Or, the reader is welcomed to 
conduct a simple online search for themselves. As I stated previously; I'm 
sure that Mr. Dapra has no purposeful intention at misrepresenting the facts 
or attempting to besmirch anyone.

Here's a repeat of the original message that was left for Mr. Bradt of the 
NYS DoH, that Mr. Dapra chose to respond to -- which makes it even more 
difficult to understand since he was the one writing and responding to questions 
asked of Mr. Bradt (still unaddressed) by me.

Under the thread title -- "How difficult is it to build...."
Mr. Clayton Bradt wrote-
----

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?  ;)

--

For clarity, a refresher and contextual reference, here's Mr. Bradt's 
original message to the list that I responded to, addressing Mr. Bradt directly.

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
---

My questions to Mr. Bradt regarding his statements included this posting-
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?  ;)
----

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank RADsafe members for their c
omments, including; Mssr's. Salsman and Harrison, Sch?nhofer, Cedervall, 
Siskel, the Dog (u guys are truly 2 funny), Mr. Huffman, Renquist, Dowell, Mr. 
Kirk, Ms. Cindy Bloom, Mr. Bob Dylan, musician (I've always liked that song 
"Blowin in the wind"),  Mssr's Miller, Aitken, Cherry, Terry, Cohen, Putley 
and Parthasarathy and any others that I may have inadvertently omitted, 
Special thanks to Mr. James Salsman and to Mr. Anthony Harrison for their 
scientifically interesting statements and attitudes conducive to open discussion 
and expression.

My very best to you all,

Sincerely, 
lou ricciuti,
researcher, author,
_http://www.artvoice.com_ (http://www.artvoice.com) ,
Niagara Falls - Lewiston - Porter, New York,
* "Los Alamos East"
-
* The free world's largest ore-to-metal uranium production center.
See: "Sites and Contractors - Appendix A"
"Electro Metallurgical Company (Niagara Falls, New York), a subsidiary of 
Union Carbide, was the MED's largest ore-to-metal uranium production plant. 