[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
I would not say that radioactivity is any more unique among toxins than
any other toxin class would be from all the others.
Most any radiation effect can also be caused by something else and most
classes of toxins have their unique properties.
The only thing really unique would be the media/politically induced
hysteria that TREATS is as if were uniquely hazardous - and the
consequential over reaction.
Raymond Shadis wrote:
>
> This is hopeless. The question was whether or not radoiactive materials are
> unique among toxins. Yes, they are. That's it. Please, no more banalities
> from the "Friendly Atom." comic series. Thanks. Ray
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul William Shafer <paulwilliam_s@yahoo.com>
> To: Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime.net>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 4:39 AM
> Subject: Re: So, is reprocessing in America's future?
>
> > Raymond:
> >
> > The problem with the "non-energized, hermetically
> > sealed jar" concept is that human beings do not live
> > in a non-energized, hermetically sealed jar. In other
> > words, ionizing radiation, like non-ionizing radiation
> > is part of the human environment no matter where the
> > human goes. Obviously, without visible light human
> > life expectancy would be severely limited and with too
> > much visible light (e.g. higher powered visible light
> > lasers or mirror focused visible light) human life
> > expectancy would be severely limited. Without x-rays
> > for medical diagnosis or gammas and higher LET
> > ionizing radiation for cancer tumor therapy, some
> > humans' life expectancy would be severely limited.
> >
> > One could go on to say "too much Pu or Pu used in the
> > wrong way (bombs or contamination by soluble forms of
> > Pu)" would severely limit human life expectancy and
> > "not using Pu in the proper way (oxide or carbide fuel
> > for power reactors) could severely limit human
> > existence, one way or another. The point is the Pu is
> > here now...what do we do with it? ("Burn" the Pu up in
> > PBMRs and get rid of it and make electricity instead
> > of trying to stockpile it and/or bury it. Eventually
> > with the PBMR technology as the pilot we may master
> > fusion electric power).
> >
> > Paul W. Shafer
> > --- Raymond Shadis <shadis@ime.net> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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.