Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!andromeda!topaz!husc6!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.politics
Subject: Re: Toxicity of plutonium
Message-ID: <453@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 12:10:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.453
Posted: Mon Jul 21 12:10:22 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 03:53:52 EDT
References: <526@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.sci:1324 net.politics:17560

> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)

A few problems with Richard's article.

First, and least important, Edsall hardly comes across as objective.

Second, "maximum permissible body burden" is hardly "the lethal dose".

Third, while it is true that it is much more difficult to detoxify
plutonium (as opposed to biological toxins), this was *NOT* the
assertion that is often made, that is, that plutonium is "the most toxic
substance".  If you want to argue that plutonium is more hazardous for
various reasons *DESPITE* being less toxic, fine, argue away, but it is
misleading and incorrect to label it as "most toxic".

Lastly, Richard seems to make the leap from "some folks think we have
underestimated the hazard" to "MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE".  It may
well be that many people are tired of being patronized, patted on the
head, and told "there, there, it's safe", but Richard might do well to
consider that some people have overdosed on alarmist propaganda, along
with those who have overdosed on polyannist propaganda.

--
#2:    ... just think of what we'll have!
#6:    A row of cabbages.
#2:    But highly educated cabbages!
                                --- From "The Prisoner"
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw