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 23:13:02 -0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Sender: Jim Pennino Message-ID: References: <57562dec$0$31329$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="db4120ef82bbc153014637d4cd15a795"; logging-data="23498"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RMIDKDfPMzaMkIxIiDbUv" User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:pZWvy9QJoxtrGiFU8xmYexbgqbw= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:583692 edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Odd Bodkin 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. > > [] >> -- >> Jim Pennino > > No, logic error. > Counter example: a cut is damage to the skin, but which heals. > Do you really think that cut because it heal is "safe". > > ed A cut is obvious damage. Can you point to damage caused by normal background radiation? -- Jim Pennino