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: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:04:54 -0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Sender: Jim Pennino <jimp@mail.specsol.com>
Message-ID: <mh0k2d-e06.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
References: <XKWdnSlNCJs1WsjKnZ2dnUU7-UWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <57562dec$0$31329$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> <nj6cp5$9hb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <un4j2d-r73.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <5757082c$0$29133$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> <00fj2d-3a4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mn4elblq9t684kodhvmdr0c8trim0c4ihe@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="db4120ef82bbc153014637d4cd15a795"; logging-data="23498"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180B2NYBN0Iw6Ymwk3+HCgb"
User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZSQTBGe/NWiGrE31mc62YU6/Aqc=
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:583690

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.

> 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.

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.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino