Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Reminder: Ionizing radiation
Date	2016-06-08 00:29 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<rg5k2d-2k6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <5757082c$0$29133$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> <00fj2d-3a4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mn4elblq9t684kodhvmdr0c8trim0c4ihe@4ax.com> <mh0k2d-e06.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <n0melbt3bnjhucnus9sb16qdnutsboea8r@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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?

>>> 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.

>>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.

Are you going to do your own epidemiological studies?

> Should we rely on "the settled science" when balancing risks?

Anyone that uses the term "settled science" should be tared and feathered.

> 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?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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