[ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....)

[JGinniver at aol.com]

Hopfully my comments will come through in italics and can be separated  from 
the previous comments.  Regards Julian
 
P.s. you might want to grab a coffe first it goes on a bit -  sorry
 
In a message dated 14/06/2005 12:49:42 GMT Standard Time, james at bovik.org  
writes:

Michael  Stabin wrote, in reply to:

>> almost everyone in the health  physics profession who might raise the
>> points I have been raising  would put at least their reputation ... and
>> at most their job  security at risk.
> 
> I disagree wholeheartedly....

If you  believe that the points I have raised do not pose a threat
to the  reputation or job security of those inside the profession,
then why have I  had to raise them, instead of those entrusted with
the responsibility for  their subject matter?
Following on from a point in my last post which you failed to respond  to 
James.  I would ask, why have you had to raise them, instead of  Greenpeace, 
Friends of the Earth, NIRS, WISE, Union of Concerned Scientists, Low  Level 
Radiation Campaign, Green Audit, Jospeh Mangano, Helen  Caldicott etc.  All groups, 
or individuals, who have invested much  more in time an effort than you on 
identifying issues within the nuclear  industry that have led, as far as they are 
concerned, to public health  issues.  Many of these groups have also been 
very vocal on the issue of  Depleted Uranium and have published much more 
information on the alleged health  effects than you.  Are they to part of the 
Conspiracy?  Or have they  too missed the blindingly obvious that you, with limited 
amount of time to  study via the internet and the library, have managed to 
identify?
 
If the health physics profession is to be so publically castigated,  where is 
you comment on the failure of these organisations to challenge the  
establishment on the issues you have identified?  
 



> I am baffled at your sweeping indictments of our  profession....

This profession puts people without any developmental  toxicology
training in charge of the regulation of developmental toxins,  and
you can't understand why I'm speaking up about it?  I find  it
hard to believe that you do not understand, very well, my fear
about  the use of nuclear waste by terrorists and despots.

Do you not agree  that putting people without any developmental
toxicology training in charge  of the regulation of developmental
toxins is negligent?  Do you not  agree that it is reckless?  Do
you not agree that it has been done  willfully?  If not, why not?
Is your comment above about the ICRP, NRC and health physicists in  general 
being 'in charge' of the regulation of Depleted Uranium (the  developmental 
toxin mentioned?).  If so I'm confused!  I thought that  these organisations 
provided advice on the restriction of exposure to radiation  - period.  The advice 
that has been provided, has as you yourself indicated  in previous posts, 
been restricted to the assessment of radiation exposure, and  the consequent 
risks to individuals from that radiation exposure.  As you  stated in your post 
dated  
Wed May  4 11:39:03 CEST 2005  
SNIP>In any case, I think  there needs to be a distinction -- which I, as an  
outsider, must say is not always made explicit in the publications of the 
health physics community -- between general exposure to radiation and 
contamination with radioactive  heavy metals which are toxic in their own  right. 
 
e.g. if someone tries to calculate only radiation exposure risk  from a 
certain level of uranium ingestion or inhalation, that will seriously  
underestimate the risk of chromosome damage; because of U's catalytic production  of 
hydroxyl radicals which damage DNA, RNA, proteins, and other vital  substances.  
There is evidence that error will amount to fully six orders  of magnitutude -- 
or five orders of magnitude for  plutonium.<SNIP
 
If I haven't misunderstood your statement above, you contend that the  
chemical toxicity of Uranium is six orders of magnitude larger than the  
radiological toxicity (risk).  Can you tell me why you are lambasting the  health physics 
profession for failing to regulate a non-radiological risk.   Or are you 
suggesting that the Health Physics profession should now regulate all  risks for 
materials which have some radiological component e.g. Lead.  If  you fully 
believe that the chemical hazard is orders of magnitutde greater than  the 
radiological hazard then perhaps you are wasting your time discussing the  matter 
with Radiation Protection Specialists.



> I'm  proud to be an HP and to be an educator who encourages
> young people to  choose it as a profession!

I don't see how anyone could be proud of the  fact that after
several decades of mass industrial uranium refinement,  nobody
can quantify its reproductive toxicity in humans.
Yes, you've identified the real flaw in the system of radiation  protection 
adopted throughout the world.  We've spent to much time  addressing the risk to 
humans from radiation exposure when what we should have  done, was identified 
that actually the radiological risk was small in comparison  to the chemical 
risk and once having developed a rudimentary regime for the  small risks from 
radiation exposure, then devopted our time chemical  toxicity.  There are many 
on the list who would agree that in comparison to  many other risks in the 
workplace or in the environment from industrial  processes, too much time and 
effort has been devoted to the small radiological  hazards and not enough time 
an effort to more conventional worker and public  health issues.
 



Members of  this profession have proven that they would rather
call for censorship and  shunning than discuss uncomfortable
questions -- not just because they  don't know the answers, but
because they know if the public became aware of  the answers,
then many of them would likely be out of work.

It's the  same problem with the Price-Anderson act.  If nuclear
power is so  great, why doesn't anyone in the insurance
industry cover it?  I'd  love to see you all to compete at the
50+ cents/kwh that you would have to  charge if you went out
and got regular insurance like every other power  company has
to do. 
The only comment I would like to make on the above is that I understood  in 
the UK that, the syndicate of individuals who underwrote some form of  'nuclear 
insurance' for the power industry in the UK, was the only group in  Lloyds of 
London who made a profit year on year through the 1980's and 90's when  all 
other isurance syndicates were suffering terribly.  Also who insures  the other 
75% of nuclear power plants in use around the world?
 

The state subsidy  to prop up nuclear power would be
even greater if we were giving the  nuclear waste the kind of
protection that it deserves from potential  terrorism.
Taxes would be much higher if all of the potential terrorist targets  
received the protection they deserved e.g. long trains of bulk chlorine tank  cars 
travelling through major cities etc.
 



It's time  to end the foolishness, 
I can't agree more, why continue disussing depleted uranium on this  list 
when it is clear that you have identified that the chemical toxicity is  orders 
of magnitude greater than the risks from the small radiation  exposure

and start building  wind farms.
No, lets all try and reduce our electricity usage so that we don't need  to 
increase our generating capacity, and if were really successful, we could  shut 
down some of the most polluting forms of electricity generation (big bad  
coal, which incidently contains uranium - Hmmm I wonder if they burn above 1000  
degrees in a nitrogen rich atmosphere and could also be producing  UO3?)
 
James, as ever I eagerly await your reply,
Julian



Sincerely,
James Salsman