Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:38:39 -0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 66 Sender: Jim Pennino Message-ID: References: <57562dec$0$31329$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> <5757082c$0$29133$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> <00fj2d-3a4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <843k2d-vb6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="db4120ef82bbc153014637d4cd15a795"; logging-data="14026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+AlfQ8cYlQ7viCDce4lgMC" User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LiI5EOfVzSXffKGI8dmL2HiYOWI= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:583865 Sergio wrote: > On 6/8/2016 1:01 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Sergio wrote: >>> On 6/7/2016 6:48 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Sergio wrote: >>>> >>>>> a way to bound it is take 100,000 people over their lifetime of 80 years. >>>>> how many get cancer ? about 450 (gov statistic) >>>>> assume 100% is caused by radiation dammaged cells >>>> >>>> A very silly assumption. >>>> >>>> Worldwide approximately 18% of cancer deaths are related to infectious >>>> diseases. >>>> >>>> Diet, physical inactivity and obesity are related to up to 30-35% of >>>> cancer deaths. >>>> >>>> Ionizing radiation is not a particularly strong mutagen. >>>> >>>> Little JB (2000). "Chapter 14: Ionizing Radiation". In Kufe DW, Pollock RE, >>>> Weichselbaum RR, Bast RC, Gansler TS, Holland JF, Frei E. Cancer >>>> medicine (6th ed.). Hamilton, Ont: B.C. Decker. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> that assumption was just a quick way to jump over a complexity, to see >>> what ballpark you are in, then go back and fix the assumption to a more >>> real or bounded value. >> >> Your assumption wasn't even in the same city as the ballpark, much less >> in the ballpark. >> >> >> > > I disagree, the stats you quoted are muddied, and it seems you missed > the point anyway, which was showing background ionizing radiation is not > a strong mutagen. > > But it is still a mutagen, and what % chance do you have of getting > cancer caused by background radiation ? > > Can you do a ballpark? Give it a shot. The upper limit is less than > 0.45% via the Gov stat of 450/100,000 get cancer in their lifetime. > > [there are two other ways to ballpark it too.] You are arm waving. I gave just two known causes of cancer which account for roughly 50% of cancer cases. Radiation exposure accounts for about 10% of cases, mostly skin cancers from ultraviolet radiation, with most of what's left from residential radon accumulation and radiation treatment for one form of cancer inducing a second form of cancer. As cancer is well reported and studied and no one cnciders background radiation as a cause, I would think it is safe to say that cause is either zero or so small to be well down into the noise level. -- Jim Pennino