From: jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 11:39:27 PDT
To: psmarie@cbis.com
Subject: Re: U & Pu "poisoning of the environment"
Message-ID: <7842@aiki.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <9408251512.AA11369@focis.sda.cbis.COM> "Paul J. Ste. Marie" writes:
> > > Epidemiologic studies of workers [even wartime workers with impressive
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > body burdens/ exposures] in a number of uranium bomb-making centers have 
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > found ~ no health effects.
> > 
> > This is quite similar to saying that nerve gas is harmless because
> > scarcely anyone working in storage areas has been killed by it.  Or
> > that bullets won't harm you because people handle crates of them and
> > they don't get shot.
> 
> No, it is not.  If you had read the message more carefully, you would
> have had to phrase your example as, "This is quite similar to saying
> that nerve gas is harmless because scarcely anyone who has inhaled
> substantial amounts of it has been killed by it."

In all of these cases there is a serious attempt to make sure that the
workers are not harmed by the dangerous substances involved.  I must
say that the phrase "impressive body burdens" is fairly incomprehensible.
But nevertheless, my point stands: workers are carefully protected from
the plutonium and U235 in nuclear weapons plants.  When their radiation
badges show what is considered a high level dose, this does not mean
that they have been exposed to anything like, say, the radiation from
a kilo of unshielded plutonium.

If radioactive substances are used as weapons, the intention will be
to do the maximum possible damage.  I don't think that anyone would
survive for long after exposure to, say, a suspension of plutonium
in air designed to be breathed in, perhaps as an aerosol.

To repeat my point: you say that statistical studies of workers in
nuclear weapons plants which are specifically designed to minimize
the effects of radiation show that radiation has done little harm.
Well, I should hope so.

On the other hand I say that such studies are poor criteria for
judging the effects of radiation intended to do the maximum possible
harm.  I think that this is really indisputable.
--
Jim Dixon