Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site meccts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!meccts!mvs
From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: plutonium
Message-ID: <335@meccts.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 21:45:05 EST
Article-I.D.: meccts.335
Posted: Thu Mar 13 21:45:05 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 07:42:16 EST
References: <860303165814.950167@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein)
Organization: MECC Technical Services, St.Paul, MN
Lines: 50

In article <860303165814.950167@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Brett Slocum) writes:
>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. 

As has been pointed out numerous studies have been done examining the
danger of plutonium.  


>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. 

Oh please.  Scientists have been studying the health effects of
radiation from the days that X-rays were discovered.  More is known
today about the health effects of radiation then about almost any
chemical or biological toxin.   If you can show that the research for
the last 80 years has grossly underestimated the health risks of 
radiation - please do so.

>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.

NOBODY said "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally
dangerous", etc.  If you can't disprove your opponents, is the 
only answer to misrepresent what they said?  Insinuating your opponents
all have a financial stake in a particular position, or are paid off 
by the government is simply a cheap shot.

>P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which
>is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear.

Yes, the Nation is more respected then the National Enquirer.  I don't
think though, I would use it as a reference source for examining the
biological effects of ionizing radiation.
-- 

Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs