Ms. Simpson,
To summarize: my argument is against the hype,
not the relative toxicity of plutonium.
If your argument was against hype as you claim, you'd take notice of the
disproportional hype relative to oral ingestion and the charades of the likes of Cohen and you
wouldn't have leant to the hype by overlooking and dismissing the inhalation toxicity
issue as you have.
Further more, if your argument was/is against the hype as you claim, you
wouldn't be using hyped up jargon yourself in any rebut - the same type of hype
that the pro-unclear advocates use with such fluidity.
So hypothetically, I would guess that much more than
half a kilo has already been distributed worldwide.
Have you got your share of cancer yet?
I don't suppose you've asked yourself what the distribution of plutonium
would be from all those releases as a ratio to land mass, surface area
or oceanic volume, to discern just how large a role dillution plays in
the matter? Almost certainly not.
So can all the clatter Ms. Simpson. There's not much room for
conclusions on the part of those who read your words. Either your very
inexact and un-thorough in your research, your intent is slanted, or
you're careless - in this instance meaning that you perhaps have a
penchant for both of the latter - not to mention that you choose to
resort to hype in an attempt to extract yourself from your ...ehhh
...hemmm oversights.
Which would you prefer Ms. Simpson? To walk into an urban environment
where a couple of grams were incinerated only a few hours ago or spend a
few hours on the Nevada test sites that haven't been active or had
above-ground tests for decades?
Were hype not your intent, you would have placed Dr. Caldicott's
remark in context, rather than trying to unite it in a manner that is
not applicable as you do now or mis-associate it in the manner that you
originally began..
Again, your argument is rather specious - all together rather hyped.
Todd Swearingen
lisa simpson wrote:
i prefer to think you know better. so give us
something real. come on,
we're dying here.
-chris
the point is not the relative toxicity of plutonium,
of course it's nasty stuff. The point is that media
hype, attributed to a medical professional who should
know better, i.e. that half a kilo, evenly dispersed
will give everyone on the earth cancer is just hype.
More than half a kilo has already been irresponsibly
blown into the sky, not everyone has cancer. The not
everyone has cancer argument is used by the
pro-nuclear factions to somehow support the idea that
plutonium isn't a problem, when it obviously is.
To summarize: my argument is against the hype, not the
relative toxicity of plutonium.
ls
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
