[ RadSafe ] adjunct points and question about deep ocean subduction zone waste disposal

[James Salsman]

Michael Kent wrote:

 > Is this increase documented in any scientifically peer
 > reviewed papers, by scientist without an agenda?

Yes, by two of them, and I'm not going to post them again:
   http://radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2005-April/001198.html

 >... How about looking to where these munitions are made?

They are not burned where they are made, as far as I know.

 >... How do you know that any birth defect is not caused by
 > other factors of being in a theater of war?

Noncombatant cohort studies.

 >... the human body when exposed to an extreme amount of prolonged
 > stress (i.e. being in a war zone) suffers some very real side
 > affects that is analogous to being poisoned.

Stress was officially ruled out by the DoD in January.  Stress
does not cause birth defects.  The pyridostigmine bromide and
other inoculations were all ruled out by 2001.

 >... I think that with a lot of anti-nuclear people this has
 > become your religion.

I am not entirely opposed to nuclear power generation.  If the
United States would agree to dispose of its nuclear waste in
deep ocean subduction zones (as I seem to recall the French do)
then I would drop my opposition to nuclear power.  It would in
that case be one of the two most appropriate complements to wind
power, which is the only direct mitigation of greenhouse gas
effects.  As it is, all our stupid waste disposal pools are an
invitation to disastrous attacks.

What is the opposition to ocean subduction zone disposal?

Sincerely,
James Salsman