Click to get your own widget

Monday, December 05, 2011

Dalgety Bay - Scotsman Letter

  This letter in the Scotsman today
Dr John Cameron writes scathingly of the alleged radiation hazard at Dalgety Bay. SEPA's own consultants years ago told them that the radiation level there was "less than 2/3rds that of the typical Aberdeen Street"; that the amount of radium in the (water soluble) paint 60 years ago needed to paint all the numbers on the dials of these planes is likely to be well short of a gram; whereas in a foot of topsoil over any square mile anywhere there averages 8 tonnes of uranium and thorium and 1 gram of radium.
Despite SEPA's claims to have found "radium and its daughter elements" (radium's sole daughter element is radon, a gas which could not remain there) no actual chemical proof of radium has been found. The radiation at Dalgety Bay is overwhelmingly and possibly entirely background radiation, and far from the highest level found naturally. SEPA have been playing on an entirely unfounded public hysteria about radiation and ignorance thereof which has been promoted by political "environmentalists" for decades. 
  I have kept in a couple of very minor editings which improved it by tightening it up. Thank you Scotsman for at last publishing.

Labels: , ,

I don't know about Neil's censureship,as so far I haven't experienced it, but then neither have you on this occasion. What is undisputable is that radium decays first to a gas ( Radon ) which has a short half life of less than four days and the decay products of it are all solid at normal temperatures ( so the Radon would need to be confined in a small space to produce particles of any significant size. As a cover story this is looking more and more threadbare. = Sandy
You never will sandy because you do rational discussion rather than insults and obscenities.

Having Skip, proven on "scienceblogs" to be a climate "scientist" "published in the finest journals" and apparentlyemployed by the US governemt to spread his bile, was initially worthwhile because he proved what an unscientific and corrupt doctrine "climate science2 must be to have leading "scientists" like that. That purpose has been served.

I would keep his posts up if he ever said anything related to facts rather than invective, since that would be adding to debate. Experience suggests he and virtually everbody on the "Green" side doesn't.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.