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