Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!nsc!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: plutonium Message-ID: <573@kontron.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Mar-86 13:22:27 EST Article-I.D.: kontron.573 Posted: Wed Mar 5 13:22:27 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 02:23:50 EST References: <860303165814.950167@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 64 > Now, sarcasm aside. > > In regards to the plutonium question, I should have stated that plutonium > is a rather poisonous substance, not the most poisonous. Since few > studies have been done since the 50's due to lack of government interest > and money and volunteers, it is difficult to exactly determine > the toxicity. I tend to take potential risks seriously, unlike the > NASA and MT management (and some readers of this forum) appear to. > > I don't buy the harmlessness of dropping radioactive materials into the > ocean. Yes, the United States did it for a while (and stopped), and > Britain is still doing it, but there have been problems from this > activity. Areas in coastal Ireland, which is the closest land area > to the British dumping area, have reported very high incidences of > cancer, attributable to the dumping activity. Also, some of the material > has been found as far away as Scandinavia. Now, I realise that the > amount involved in dumping are high, but the material is put into > steel or lead casks and supposedly remains intact. In the case of the shuttle, > most of the material may remain intact, but some will not, and little of > it would be as well protected as the dumping casks. > > As far as the death of thousands, I'm not talking about dying instantly > or even in a month from the accident. I'm talking ten years down the road. > Cancer works that way. > > In reference to hysteria, I find the negative responses to my original posting > to show a remarkable level of propaganda in the opposite direction. They > seem to be saying "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally > dangerous", "No additional deaths would occur", "Nobody has ever died > from atmospheric releases of plutonium", "It's safe to dump it in the > ocean", etc. with as little to back them up as I did. They sound like > spokespersons for Kerr-McGee or the rest of the nuclear power industry or > the U.S. government. > Go back and take a look at the postings. No one made the statements you are showing above in quotes. The statements that were made: 1. took exception to the hysterical and GROSSLY INACCURATE statements that you made about plutonium's dangers not associated with the radiological hazards. 2. took exception to your ABSURD statement that one pound would kill everyone on Earth. 3. asked for a basis for your "thousands" of deaths that would result. And even then, it was a request for information to back up your claim. NO ONE claimed it was safe to dump in the ocean -- just that the risks are pretty small from ONE accident. > Now, I hope that we can leave this topic alone and move on to other things. > Not as long as you keep misrepresenting what people said in response to your posting. Reading the postings before responding to them is always a good idea. > -- Brett Slocum > > P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which > is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear. Respected? By who? And if they publish statements so clearly false, why do YOU respect them?