[ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners

[Muckerheide, James]

I agree, to a point.  Most HPs do exactly that.  Many don't.  But the failure
is in the standard-setting that generates the massive funding for protecting
against extreme limits, e.g., EPA set YM limits at 4 mrem/year in water, and
4 mrem/year from radium in water, now costing municipal water systems $100s
millions. Other than a few personal opinions bandied about, where were the
HPs?  The anti-nuke DOE Secretary (Richardson) used an anti-nuke (Michaels)
to work outside DOE to collect discredited papers in a report and claimed
DOE/AEC workers are 'cold war victims' (with doses below established limits).
We could get no HPs to speak out.  Many HPs are out fear-mongering the public
about "site cleanups" at doses that are much less than 1% of the variation in
background radiation.  The core problem is the lack of integrity in
responding to the specifically dishonest assessments produced by the closed
NCRP/ICRP et al. 'advising' (and controlling rad protection appointments in)
national and int'l govt agencies.  There is no HP constraint on dose limits
getting ever more extreme (generating jobs).  The only limit is to avoid the
premise that radiation should be prohibited.Will HPs accept the conclusion
that 1-2% of cancers in nuclear workers are caused by radiation?  While
knowing that nuclear wokers have lower cancer rates than non-nuclear workers?
 
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of bobcherry at cox.net
Sent: Tue 6/28/2005 12:49 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners


You know that if health physicists were a disreputable group (and I maintain
that we aren't), then we would concede all of the activists' alarms and
hysteria about severe radiation hazards at levels of ionizing and nonionizing
radiation exposure less than 10 or so times above, at, or below environmental
levels. Then we could increase our salaries, membership in our profession,
span of control, prestige, number of academic and leadership appointments,
number and value of research grants, etc., accordingly.

Yet we don't concede the activists' "points," because we prefer to tell the
truth. So we remain as we are: responsible scientists, with our self-respect
and scientific reputations intact, who provide our best advice to our
employers and to the public.

Bob

>
> From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
> Date: 2005/06/28 Tue AM 11:44:20 EDT
> To: James Salsman <james at bovik.org>
> CC: radsafe at radlab.nl,  radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Clinton Takes on Uranium Inhalation Poisoners
>
> James Salsman wrote:
>
> >On the contrary, the Taiwan apartment-dwellers were not inhaling
> >toxicants.
>
> Of course they were inhaling toxicants, just as all people do.  We just
> don't know which toxicants they were inhaling and how much they were
> inhaling.
>
> Also, according to the DU "poisoning" theories, the Bethlehem workers
> should have expressed the Gulf War Syndrome symptoms long before the Gulf
> War Syndrome symptoms were identified.  By the time the Gulf War came
> around, the symptoms expressed by the Gulf War veterns should have been
> quickly noted to be the "Bethlehem Millworker Syndrome" symptoms.  You may
> recall that the current DU activist assertion is that the non-cancer
> symptoms from uranium dust exposure would be evident long before any cancer
> symptoms would be observed.  The non-cancer symptoms should also be
> expressed at a much higher rate than the cancer symptoms, if the cancer
> symptoms were ever expressed at all.
>
> In addition, the reporter's comment that "Many of those workers got sick"
> could be made regarding any group of workers or non-workers anywhere.
>
> Perhaps, Mr. Salsman's technical expertise will be helpful in explaining
> the reporter's claim that, "It got so hot it could burn a blister on the
> skin the size of a silver dollar."
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Don Kosloff
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal
> and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this
> message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
> have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately,
> and delete the original message.
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/