Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #583731

Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation

From jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups sci.physics
Subject Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation
Date 2016-06-08 01:45 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <2v9k2d-747.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <mn4elblq9t684kodhvmdr0c8trim0c4ihe@4ax.com> <mh0k2d-e06.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <n0melbt3bnjhucnus9sb16qdnutsboea8r@4ax.com> <rg5k2d-2k6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <ffqelb12muihgnu7bb8c8lvq9qsksthu04@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:29:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:04:54 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/07/2016 11:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Gosh, Sammy, I"m sure there is no big money financial interest in
>>>>>>>>>> finding a link between cellphones and cancer.  That certainly makes for
>>>>>>>>>> honest and open science!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Sammy, what is the "safe" dose of inonizing radiation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any idea? As a propagandist for establishment I'm sure you'll tell us
>>>>>>>>>> that all "routine" radiation is "safe". And of course you be a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THERE IS NO "SAFE" DOSE OF IONIZING RADIATION!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I agree with that, but on the other hand there are two things to
>>>>>>>>> consider:
>>>>>>>>> 1. There's a level of ionizing radiation from background sources you can
>>>>>>>>> do nothing about, from cosmic rays, natural radioisotopes, and so on. So
>>>>>>>>> any additional man-made sources that are small compared to, say, moving
>>>>>>>>> to the mountains would be pointless to fret about.
>>>>>>>>> 2. The body does have internal repair mechanisms, where damaged DNA,
>>>>>>>>> damaged chromosomes, damaged proteins, and damaged cells are flushed
>>>>>>>>> from the system. So there is some level of ionization radiation which,
>>>>>>>>> while not "safe", is dealt with effectively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So you are arguing like Odd normally would that "not safe" actually 
>>>>>>> means "safe"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope; just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe".
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip remaining long winded gummint (sic) kook babble>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which dictionary?
>>>>> 
>>>>> And which sense?
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/safe
>>>>> 1.  secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk: 
>>>>> a safe place.
>>>>> 2.  free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk: 
>>>>> to arrive safe and sound.
>>>>> 3.  involving little or no risk of mishap, error, etc.: 
>>>>> a safe estimate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Senses 1 and 2 can be known only after the fact: the damaged cell was
>>>>> repaired or "flushed from the system."
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the cell was damaged and became a problem, then the radiation dose
>>>>> was *not* safe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW: How expendable was the cell that was "flushed from the system?"
>>>>> Who knows whether it was the most important nueron in what would have
>>>>> been a brilliant, world-changing thought?
>>>>
>>>>Tracking health on an individual cellular basis is impossible.
>>> 
>>> Our ability to do such tracking does not mean the effect can't happen.
>>
>>How many cells, and in what manner, in the human body must be damaged
>>before there is a detectable effect on health?
> 
> Not answerable in all cases.

Likely not answerable in any case, which means all this blather about
the background radiation is just that, blather.


>>>>> The third sense is subjective. Would you play Russian Roulette if
>>>>> there was "little" risk?
>>>>
>>>>Thinking that one can get the risks in life to zero is wishful thinking.
>>> 
>>> The question is any non-zero risk necessarily "safe."
>>
>>The qusstion is childish.
> 
> Then what non-zero level of risk is safe? 0.1%? 0.01%?
> 
> If one is in the 0.01%, then it wasn't safe.

Duh.

>>>>A reasonable adult learns to balance risks, as in is it better to get an
>>>>occasional dental x-ray or risk getting periodontal disease which is
>>>>known to cause both heart problems and several other nasty things.
>>> 
>>> There is a difference between an adult balancing their own risks and
>>> someone else declaring a risk to be "neglible."
>>
>>Apples and oranges.
> 
> That was the point.

What, stating the blazingly obvious?

>>Are you going to do your own epidemiological studies?
> 
> Yet we rely on epidemiological studies by others.

What is your point, if you actually have one?

> Like climastrologists, all pharma researchers are squeaky clean,
> right? /sarc

So you are changing the subject to pharma?

Sorry, but I fail to see what pharma has to do with the effects of
background radiation.

>>> Should we rely on "the settled science" when balancing risks?
>>
>>Anyone that uses the term "settled science" should be tared and feathered.
> 
> Again, that was the point.
> 
>>> http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Mercury_FactSheet.html
>>> Defining safe levels of mercury in blood continues to be an active
>>> research area.
>> 
>>So are a lot of things; so what?
> 
> On what basis should "a reasonable adult ... balance risks" if, as you
> imply, they aren't going to do their own epidemiological studies and
> the "experts" keep changing their minds?
 
Give a modern, i.e. within the last half century, when experts have
"changed their minds" on an epidemiological effect.

What actually happens is with more data, levels get adjusted since
society in general these days frowns on things like taking 10,000 people
and deliberately exposing them to something known to be harmful.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 13:57 -0500
  Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-06 18:38 -0400
  Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-06 18:04 -0500
    Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-06 22:42 -0400
  Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-06 22:14 -0400
    Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 04:20 +0000
      Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 10:02 +0200
        Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 07:58 -0500
          Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:25 +0200
      Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 07:57 -0500
      Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:00 -0700
    Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:56 -0500
      Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 08:16 -0500
        Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 14:24 -0500
          Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 14:42 -0500
      Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 15:10 +0000
        Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-07 13:45 -0400
          Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 18:05 +0000
            Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 14:39 -0400
              Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 13:59 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 16:00 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 16:48 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 18:10 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 19:24 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:48 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 20:08 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 00:21 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 20:41 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 00:58 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 21:13 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 01:27 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 22:20 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 01:10 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 06:01 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 09:36 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 18:38 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 14:18 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:44 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 16:59 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:10 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:35 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 22:55 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:37 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:23 -0700
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 02:49 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:52 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 16:25 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:38 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:17 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 16:45 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 23:05 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 20:00 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 21:22 -0400
              Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:04 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 19:51 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 00:29 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 20:53 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 01:45 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-07 22:10 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 06:12 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-08 11:35 -0500
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 18:45 +0000
            Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-07 14:48 -0400
              Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:10 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-07 21:39 -0400
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 06:14 +0000
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 10:21 -0700
                Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:07 +0000
        Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 14:31 -0500
          Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 14:43 -0500
            Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 16:19 -0500
        Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 15:21 -0700
          Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-07 23:13 +0000
            Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 05:58 -0700
              Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:14 +0000
            Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-08 09:22 -0500
              Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 19:15 +0000
  Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-06-08 04:40 -0700
    Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 09:27 -0500
      Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 05:54 -0700
        Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-06-09 06:03 -0700
          Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:51 -0500
        Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:50 -0500

csiph-web