[ RadSafe ] Radiation in San Fran's water

[James Salsman]

Jaro Kotalik wrote:

>... for example, antinukes typically calculate radiation casualties by
> assuming  that all deceased persons died due to radiation-related causes....

Can anyone cite such a typical example?

> many (most ?) of those thyroidectomies were precautionary -- some
> would say needlessly so, based on the subsequent examinations of
> the removed organs.

Saying a precautionary thyroidectomy was needless based on a
subsequent examination is as useless and as intellectually dishonest
as claiming a condom was unnecessary nine months after its use.
Clearly, a gland removed from a body is not going to suffer the
full consequences of that body's exposure to environmental toxins.

> how does one go from nineteen thyroidectomies to "530 cancers
> have already been caused by the tests" and "another 500 cancers
> are likely to develop"?

Please see pages 14-17 (pdf pp. 15+) of:
   http://www.yokwe.net/ydownloads/NCI-report.pdf

> Barbara's account of her experience w.r.t. housing developments
> being opposed in California by nearby populations due to traffic
> concerns is very much appreciated....

Indeed; any exposition suggesting a hypothetical alternative to
the general public opposition to building housing units on land
contaminated with radioactive isotopes is obviously quite welcome
on RADSAFE.  If we only had more HPS members involved with public
relations campaigns able to produce such alternative hypotheses
on demand, then maybe we could raise government revenues by
increasing property values.  After all, California's Proposition
13 limits property tax basis value assessment except in cases of
transfer, so if we could get more housing units built on
contaminated land, then we would be able to assess property
values more frequently in proportion to their increased mortality
rate.  Ms. Hamrick should be recognized for this unique and oh,
so very fiscally prudent solution to California's budget crisis.

However, might I suggest that such hypotheses, in order to be
more successful, not be in direct contradiction to Californians'
well-known affection for automobiles?

Sincerely,
James Salsman