[ RadSafe ] US enriched uranium weapons caused Fallujah cancer, UK-Iraq s...

StevenFrey at aol.com StevenFrey at aol.com
Tue Nov 29 18:13:24 CST 2011


Kudos! The world needs more kind, gentle souls.
 
However, any participant, even a "civil" one,  who exploits this board  to 
try to get any other member fired from his/her radiation-safety-related  job 
purely over ideological differences is no gentleman. Mr. Salsman has done  
exactly that. Actions speak louder than words, even "civil" words.
 
Some members feel immune from Mr. Salsman's tactics. Good for them. There  
are others, though, who might not be so yet well established in this great  
profession, like younger members who are still early in their careers. It is 
 this latter group that the likes of Mr. Salsman potentially can cause real 
 damage. 
 
Why would any RADSAFE member want to offer anything here in RADSAFE,  
knowing that a lurker might  contact your employer claiming you  are somehow 
discrediting it? How many of us have the extra available time  to devote to 
countering such claims made to our supervisors, no matter  how crackpot the 
claims might be? Is this board allowing itself to evolve  to where only the 
well-established will participate as a result? RADSAFE is  allowing its desire 
to be "fair and inclusive" to have grown to a  counterproductive extreme.
 
We have an implied obligation amongst ourselves to uphold the  transparency 
of this board and to prevent its misuse. Mr. Salsman (or  whatever his/her 
real name is; recall he/she has already written here that  "James Salsman" 
is not his/her real name), is not transparent as to he/she  is, and has tried 
to harm the employment of at least one member.
 
Even kind, gentle souls should recognize this reality. 
 
Steve
 
 
In a message dated 11/29/2011 4:35:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hotgreenchile at gmail.com writes:

Why?  Because I am a Southerner. I believe that courtesy should be extended 
when the  other party tries to be civil. 

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn,  Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014  (Home) 
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com
Sent from my  iPhone

On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:21 PM, StevenFrey at aol.com  wrote:

> Why extend any courtesy to Mr. Salsman? The willingness of  this proud 
board 
> to even allow him access here continues to  amaze.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> In a message dated  11/29/2011 3:45:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
>  hotgreenchile at gmail.com writes:
> 
> Dear  James:
>  
> I understand your comments, and did not mean to suggest that   your 
> observations are invalid.
> 
> My deepest concern is  that the RadSafe  group is being monitored by 
> non-professionals  that have a hard time making  sense of various 
measurements, 
>  claims and biases - with unfounded assertions  as well as with 
quantities  and 
> units.  Thus, my conversion from mBq Kg-1  to a  measurement used in 
regulatory 
> context, μg/L (microgram /  Liter).   Since my background includes quite 
a 
> bit of  geochemistry, and for my own  understanding, I tend to convert 
values  
> into units that I can use.  If I  was terse, please accept  my apology.
> 
> My specific concern with the Busby  claim of  "enriched uranium" in 
Fallujah 
> and elsewhere (Lebanon) in soils  is  simply that based on the available 
> data, I do not believe  it, and the data do  not support that assertion, 
not to 
> mention  that the actual values measured are  quite low by environmental 
>  standards.  Unfortunately, there are those who  are willing to  believe 
> regardless of the source or in-validity of the claim.   
> 
> Sampling soil, ground & surface water and rock is a  non-trivial  
exercise 
> requiring extensive training, practice and  understanding of the  
methodology. 
> When little or no information  is provided about sampling,  no 
differential 
> analysis of leached  samples, nor a description and analysis of  the 
> uranium-bearing  mineralogy of the soil, I am left to conclude that Busby’
s  work 
>  was no “study” at all in the scientific sense.
> 
> James, by the  way,  I have understood the concept of differential 
> leachability  of U-234 vs. U-238  in geomedia for decades (since 1975, at 
least)  
> because of the abundant  literature on uranium ore deposits and  
ore-forming 
> processes. I have been, of  course, a uranium  geologist since 1975 
although I’ve 
> done quite a few other  jobs  since then (environmental hydrogeology, 
> geochemistry, hydrology,  dog  & horse trainer).
> 
> Dan ii
> 
>  --
> Dan W McCarn,  Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los  Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014  (Home – New  Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New  Mexico)
>  HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot   com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original  Message-----
> From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu   
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James   Salsman
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 13:43
> To:   radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] US enriched  uranium  weapons caused Fallujah 
> cancer,UK-Iraq study  finds
> 
> Dan McCarn  wrote:
> 
>> After  reviewing the abstract of the paper that James  mentioned,  the
>> concentration of uranium represented by 27 mBq-Kg-1   (0.027 Bq / Kg) is 
> about
>> 1 µg/L (1 microgram / L).   Most waters  have more than that.
> 
> I wasn't trying to  imply that the West European  cheeses were
> contaminated, only  that the uranium that they did contain had  an
> enriched isotope  ratio, which was attributed to natural processes  by
> the authors.  This assertion that chemical isotope separation  occurs
> naturally  is consistent with the very different translocation rates  of
>  uranium isotopes in the human body reported in BNWL-2500, Part 1,   pp.
> 379-380 (1978.)
> 
> If chemical isotope enrichment is  a born secret  doctrine taboo topic,
> which seems very likely to  me, then fine, but it's  not ethical to try
> to ridicule or  discredit researchers who find enriched  ratios in
>  groundwater.  Especially when only anti-DU researchers are  the  ones
> who are subject to such ridicule.  Especially when   authorities keep
> telling bald faced lies about safety,   e.g.,
>  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/14/minister-sorry-dangers-deplet
>  ed-uranium
> 
> Back  to the topic, I can't find any reports  of anyone looking at Iraqi
> dairy  products, which seems absurd  given the amount of soil and
> groundwater  contamination studies  which are published. Almost all of
> the food chain  studies of  uranium contamination around geological
> deposits and mine   tailings in developed countries focus on dairy
> because it's the  most  concentrated and bioavailable source in the
> human food  chain (other than  the livers of Caribou that have eaten
> lichens  around deposits somewhere in  Canada.) Domestic milk in Iraq is
>  entirely from goats and sheep watered  from wells, so why isn't  anyone
> looking at Iraqi  dairy?
> 
>  Sincerely,
> James  Salsman
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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