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

["Raymond Shadis" <shadis@ime.net>]

Bernard, Robert,

You say, " --

    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."

Why say, "...that may be so"? It IS so. Thediscussion or "thread" had gone

on to comparing radioactive material to other hazardous material when I

joined in. The statement was made that radioactive material is not unique.

Well, again...Yes, it is for a number of reasons, the most obvious being

that it is the only material, at least  that I can think of, that can kill

you from inside of a non-energized, hermetically sealed jar. Why cavil and

equivocate? Radioactive material presents a unique hazard! Under applied

conditions radioactive materials may be more or less hazardous than

non-radioactive toxins, but they are nonetheless, unique.

Thanks for your comments. Rest assured I'll respond to no further on this

ever so simple distinction.

I hope you will forgive me if this is not clear. English is my second

language. I have apparently not yet mastered a third: plain English.

                                                           Ray



----- Original Message -----

From: Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>

To: Wilson Robert H PSNS <wilsonr@psns.navy.mil>

Cc: Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime.net>; <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>; maury

<maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:20 AM

Subject: 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.