[ RadSafe ] WISE Uranium caluclators etc

[A Karam]

Presumably the chemical toxicity is thought to be obvious since the intended users (i.e. radiation safety professionals) are well aware of the lack of risk associated with exposure to 182 mrem.
 
Mr. Salsman - your comments suggest that what is fairly common knowledge among radiation safety professionals is new and shocking to you.  Your comments might gain a somewhat better reception if you submit them as questions, asked so that you can improve your knowledge of an interesting subject.  Unfortunately, it is all too easy to read your comments as indictments of personnel working in a field about which you seem to have little direct knowledge or understanding.  You also seem to go under the assumption that everyone is trying to hide, or to get away with something - this is rude, to say the least.   It also suggests that everyone should, perhaps, assume that you are as dishonest as those you accuse.  We tend to see in others what we think we see in ourselves - those that seem most suspicious of others often seem to have the most to hide.
 
I know it is an American conceit that a self-trained person might be able to somehow "beat" the experts.  Our media is replete with stories of garage mechanics whose inventions have been suppressed by the oil companies or the auto manufacturers or the government.  I've lost track of the phone calls I've taken from well-intentioned people who are convinced they've discovered a scientific "truth" that the experts have somehow missed.  This phenomenon is treated at some length in Park's book, Voodoo Science.  The experts are not always right, but enthusiastic and well-intentioned amateurs are right even less frequently.  Sadly, in most cases, the self-made "experts" often seem to be pushing an agenda or self-aggrandizement rather than a scientific revolution.
 
In my experience, most people (including scientists, regulators, and even reporters) are straight-forward and honest.  Although I have heard of scientists who have purposely altered or supressed data for a specific purpose, I have never met one in person - the number of scientists who participate in such fraud is very small.  In fact, the great majority of scientists will walk away from a hypothesis, even one in which they have invested a serious amount of work, when confronted by evidence that shows them to have been wrong.  This experience is contrary to speculations and accusations in many of the postings on this list-server; this suggests that either I am hopelessly optimistic about human nature, or that those postulating some conspiracy aimed at hiding the "truth" see humanity as far more ignoble than seems to be the case.  In fact, the number of people of any persuasion who participate in fraud is very small; certainly far smaller than is suggested in so many postings.
 
Anyone is, of course, free to post what they will.  They are also free to read others' postings with whatever degree of belief they choose.  I would submit, however, that all should try reading postings with an open mind and not with the assumption that the person must be lying or dissembling if they say something that does not fit with pre-conceived notions.  If one's only purpose in posting to the list as a whole is to insult others, to call them liars, to cast aspersions on their character, or to speculate about conspiracies to hide the "truth", perhaps they should consider whether or not this is a list to which they really want to belong.  
 
My understanding is that this list is supposed to be devoted to asking question and sharing information about radiation-related topics.  I'm sure there is a conspiracy list-server somewhere, which may be a better forum for other postings.
 
Andy
 
P. Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP