RE: So, is reprocessing in America's future?

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

> Radioactive materials ARE uniquely hazardous in that no contact is

necessary

for harm to be inflicted...

I think it is a mistake to turn a snide smile at the intuitive response.



Ray:



Thanks for the input.  Let me say first, I have great respect for intuition.

I agree with Einstein that it is the source of all innovation.  But in this

case, it's hard to separate the effect of intuition from the effect of the

steady input of radiophobia.



Scattering some radioactivity around generally results in a calculated

ingestion hazard (requiring direct contact of the most personal kind).

External radiation from such particles would not be serious unless there was

a truly huge number of curies involved.  I believe there are many ways of

creating more havoc much more simply.  I just don't see how radiation is

uniquely dangerous.  My daughter just got back from a month in Tibet, most

of the time between 15 to 17,000 feet, plus flying.  Her intuition didn't

warn her of any danger.  Incidentally, the real danger there is from lead

poisoning, which comes from breathing smoke from yak dung fires.  Yaks

apparently eat plants that concentrate lead!  Science did a cover story some

years ago that said (as I recall) that Tibetans's blood is among the highest

lead content in the world.  And its half-life is infinite :-)



Thanks again,



Ted



Your point about the relative risks from chemicals is interesting.



Thanks again.





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.