[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Wilson Robert H PSNS wrote:
> I am not sure I understand the point here, is this to suggest that some type
> of contact is not necessary for harm to be done when in the presence of
> some hazardous material or equipment that emits an energy form?
--The implication in the remark I was responding to is that
radiation is unique in that no contact is necessary to cause harm. That
may be so for gamma rays, but I was pointing out that it is not relevant
to the discussion about plutonium.
>
> Bob Wilson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard L Cohen [mailto:blc+@PITT.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:00 AM
> To: Raymond Shadis
> Cc: tedrock@CPCUG.ORG; maury; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Raymond Shadis wrote:
>
> > Ted,
> > Radioactive materials ARE uniquely hazardous in that no contact is
> necessary
> > for harm to be inflicted.
>
> Plutonium, which started this thread, inflicts no harm without
> contact; in fact it must be inhaled or ingested.
> Nerve gases kill without any obvious contact, as does aflotoxin
> and other biological agents in food or water supplies.
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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.
>
>
************************************************************************
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.