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

[JGinniver at aol.com]

James,
thanks for the reply, even it is very limited.  
 
In a message dated 14/06/2005 21:03:07 GMT Standard Time, james at bovik.org  w
rites:

>  [Has everyone else] missed the blindingly obvious that you, with 
>  limited amount of time to study via the internet and the library, 
>  have managed to identify?

The taking up of oxygen by U3O8, "is not  infrequently ignored."
(Gmelin Handbook, vol. U-C1 (1977), page  98.)
You appear to have missed the point, the fact that it is identified in  a 
book is not relevant to my previous post.  The cornerstone of your  arguments 
against both DU and the Uranium fuel cycle used in nuclear power  generation, 
have not been identified by any other watchdog (anti-nuclear)  group.  
Can you provide a clear statement on the following two  points.
1) Why haven't your arguments been made by the many individuals  employed 
either directly or indirectly by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth,  NIRS, WISE, 
UCS, LLRC, Green Audit or any other watchdog  organisation?
2)  Given that these organisations haven't used or identified the  same key 
issues as yourself, why shouldn't they be criticised?
 



> I thought that [the ICRP and NRC] provided advice on  the
> restriction of exposure to radiation - period.

42 U.S.C.  2114(a)(1) gives the NRC authority over both the
"radiological and  non-radiological hazards" associated with
processing, possession, and  transfer of depleted uranium:
_http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002114---
-000-.html_ 
(http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002114----000-.html) 
 
Thanks you for clarifying the above.  I wasn't aware as a non-US  citizen 
that the NRC regulated this area.  Perhaps you could clarify a  further 
misunderstanding that I have.  I always thought that the NRC  regulated the Civil 
Nuclear Power Industry (along with various activities  involving either radioactive 
material or X-rays).  I didn't realise that  they were staffed wholly by 
Health Physicists.  I had thought that they  were a multidisciplinary organisation 
that employed some health  physicists/radiation protection specialists, and 
in the main the HP/RP people  were just a small subset of the organisation.  
The NRC is also charged with  ensuring the conventional and nuclear safety of 
Power Plants, or is all of  this too regulated by the health physicists?



> Can you tell me why you are lambasting the health  physics
> profession for failing to regulate a non-radiological  risk.

Sure, because it's a risk (often the largest) from  the
materials that the health physics community has been placed
in  charge of regulating.
If I haven't misunderstood both the role and the organisation of the  NRC, 
then it is plainly wrong to state that the 'health physics community has  been 
placed in charge of regulating' any materials, including  Uranium.  Instead it 
is  a Government regulatory body who is  responsible and that this body 
contains, I'm sure, chemists and other scientits  who are better placed to formulate 
policy and guidance on the chemical hazards  of Uranium or Depleted Uranium.  
Even if the NRC choose to involve their  own Health Physics staff in the 
formulation of government policy or regulation,  and I would hope that you accept 
from the discussions you have seen on radsafe  that this doesn't always (and 
more generally does rarely) reflect the views of  the wider health physics 
community, this is still not the same as the 'health  physics community' being the 
regulator.
 


I'm  glad I'm not the only one worried about the tendency
to focus on  radiological risks while ignoring larger
nonradiological  risks.
Any thoughts on the potential hazards of combustion (or even  smelting) of 
Uranium bearing ores.  Does this have the same potential from  the production 
UO3 that can be dispersed in the plume from these  plants?
 
Warmest regards,
    Julian