RE: Kidneys, Nevada DOE and BIOPSIES

["Hall, David A." <halld@NV.DOE.GOV>]

Dear Radsafe Colleagues,

 

Well, I tried.

My now not-so-youthful idealism has been shattered yet again.

My attempt to add some objective dialog into this discussion, and offer some

tangible mechanism for measuring actual exposure that could be related to

observed harm, has been rebuked in such a manner to make me feel like the

friendly family pooch that gets kicked for no reason.

 

The respondent to my honest and sincere overtures has apparently prejudged

me based on my email address?

As my grandkids would say, "that is SO five minutes ago."

 

For the record:

I've never been responsible for any activity that created any environmental

hazards.

I've never been a participant in a nuclear test.

I've never been involved in the Uranium fuel cycle or Plutonium production.

 

I do consider myself a quasi-informed and very INDEPENDENT observer of these

issues.

I do have a PROFESSIONAL interest in this topic as it is in my line of work.

I do not have any "turf" to defend.  

 

If any legacy contaminants contribute a real risk to humankind, I am all for

exposure (no pun intended) and remediation.

 

For-what-it-is-worth... I have NEVER been prevented by the DOE from

reporting the TRUTH in my professional activities.  But there are some

government contractors that have reserved a 55 gallon disposal drum for me.

;-)

 

Could someone explain to me why a concerned federal government employee, who

actually has responsibilities for oversight to insure the protection of

workers, the public, and the environment, and attempts to assist in some

meaningful manner, is subjected to this kind of prejudice?  I suppose if I

used a private email address and was "found out" to be a fed, that would

bring its own set of theories too.  Just can't win, can I.

 

Again, speaking on my own behalf,

 

David Hall

 



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

From: NiagaraNet@aol.com [mailto:NiagaraNet@aol.com] 

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:44 AM

To: halld@nv.doe.gov; radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

Cc: NiagaraNet@aol.com

Subject: Kidneys, Nevada DOE and BIOPSIES





Subj: RE: Niagara, Franz, Kidneys around MED AEC sites 

Date: 4/1/2004 12:32:52 PM Eastern Standard Time 

From: halld@nv.doe.gov <mailto:halld@nv.doe.gov>  

To: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM <mailto:NiagaraNet@AOL.COM> ,

franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT <mailto:franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT> ,

radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu <mailto:radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>  

Sent from the Internet (Details) 



Dear NN aka LR,



This commentary is offered in all seriousness. (Seriously!!!)

>> Doesn't sound so serious. Sounds kind of like the rest.



So, How many of these "kidney disease" cases have had bioassay for Uranium?

>> Why do you use quotation marks "..."? In answer to your question, I don't

know, But it will be looked into. I thought someone in your section or

department would have that answer.



Likewise, how many "cases" have had post-mortem investigation of Uranium in

*any* organs?  



>> I don't know other than there have been autopsies preformed and organs

sampled. DOE Nevada has these records. Why don't you know this? Currently,

there are several families that are taking steps to have exhumations done in

support of their, and others compensation claims. Ironic you should ask. I

guess you'll read or hear of the results.



Uranium is easy to detect at very low amounts with current analytical

technology, especially if you have a tissue sample (biopsy).

>> See above comment. How well would the U last in necrotic kidney >> tissue

30-40-50 years old...pretty well right?  : *) 



Today's Key words:  "bioassay" "biopsy"

>> Thanks.



Oh, I almost forgot.  When are *all* the dialysis patients in the region

going to be tested for Uranium exposure? It seems to be to be an easy to

find "smoking gun" for adverse health effects.

>> I don't see the use of the word "all" in any previous posting. Your >> >>

word. 

>> Jeez, I was just wondering when the DOE would fund such an >> >> >>

analysis. Any ideas on how to get in the DOE funding cycle for this >> sort

of wide test? I'd appreciate suggestions, as this sort of testing >> would

certainly tell the tale, so to speak, wouldn't it?



>> As far as smoking gun is concerned, as Karl Morgan said, and I'll >>

paraphrase,  In a thousand years people will be able to come back >> and see

the folly. Smoking gun is right! 



David Hall

Las Vegas, Nevada



Speaking, as I always do on radsafe, only for my own professional curiosity.

>> AND from a US government department of energy computer. 

>> Oh, I do see that it was during lunch though--don't forget to wash >> >>

those hands!