[ RadSafe ] RE: questions of honesty

[Jim Hoerner]

>From: James Salsman <james at bovik.org>
>To: michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.Edu
>Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] questions of honesty (was Re: WISE Uranium....)
>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:45 AM

>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?

Yes, James.  One issue you have raised - that the chemical toxicity of 
uranium is more threatening than its radiological toxicity - is a minor 
threat to some inside this profession, perhaps.  One point for James, 
woohoo!

>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 enjoy your posts, but they are usually more respectful than this.  RadSafe 
in general is full of brilliant, well-qualified individuals.  Why don't you 
go after the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for allowing the use 
of coal cinders containing _natural_ (gasp!) uranium and mercury as a 
de-icer on public highways?

>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.

History shows that a fear of spiders is much more logical.

>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.

Not even you?  So what exactly are you complaining about?  Be careful of the 
uranium in your backyard soil or leaching from your tap water.  Call your 
public water authority today, and tell them their limits are baseless.

>Members of this profession have proven that they would rather
>call for censorship and shunning than discuss uncomfortable
>questions

Don't generalize, please.  But I agree with you.  I was apalled at all the 
calls for your censorship.  You seem to be a generally intelligent human 
being, if lacking in certain specialized areas, like all of us. You  were 
also fairly polite from what I read before my travels.  Ignore the vocal 
minority (?) that wish to silence you when you act respectfully.

>-- 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.

I doubt they are concerned about that.  More likely, they have thin skins 
and disagree with you.

>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

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such bulloney sandwiches.

>It's time to end the foolishness, and start building wind farms.

Heh.  Wind is not capable of baseload nor peak demand.  It therefore does 
not avoid the building of power plants.  It is not built at all without huge 
subsidies (see 2004 in the US).  It emits more CO2 than nuclear.  It's 
payback time is relatively long.  Energy storage doubles its cost.

But please, feel free to install a wind generator in your back yard.  If 
not, why not?  Really, why do you not have solar panels on your roof, nor a 
wind turbine in your backyard?  James?

Sincerely,
Jim Hoerner

--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you. When the driver in the adjacent 
lane signals to get over, slow down. Smile and say "hi" to the folks you 
pass on the sidewalk. Give blood. Volunteer.