Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #583394 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-06 13:57 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-06-09 09:50 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 83 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57588f98$0$35916$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583927 |
On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> >>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. > > I'm not sure I agree with that. > Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher elevations. > Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation > in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background radiation > rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. > > Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US Great > Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of > smoked fish. > >> >> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. >> >> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >> that of the name-callers. Nail on the head, Boinker! That was Dr. ALICE MARY STEWART, by the way. And just for Boinker: This is a good read! Get a cup of tea and have at it! http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/0472087835
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lckm2d-ame.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583938 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>> >>>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >>>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. >> >> I'm not sure I agree with that. >> Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher elevations. >> Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation >> in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background radiation >> rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. >> >> Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US Great >> Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of >> smoked fish. >> >>> >>> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >>> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >>> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >>> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >>> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >>> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. >>> >>> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >>> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >>> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >>> that of the name-callers. > > Nail on the head, Boinker! > > That was Dr. ALICE MARY STEWART, by the way. > > And just for Boinker: This is a good read! Get a cup of tea and have at it! > > http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/0472087835 BJ is amazed that data and knowledge is a cumulative process. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 20:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5758ba46$0$38789$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583955 |
On 06/08/2016 06:55 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >>>>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. >>> >>> I'm not sure I agree with that. >>> Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher elevations. >>> Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation >>> in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background radiation >>> rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. >>> >>> Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US Great >>> Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of >>> smoked fish. >>> >>>> >>>> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >>>> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >>>> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >>>> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >>>> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >>>> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. >>>> >>>> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >>>> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >>>> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >>>> that of the name-callers. >> >> Nail on the head, Boinker! >> >> That was Dr. ALICE MARY STEWART, by the way. >> >> And just for Boinker: This is a good read! Get a cup of tea and have at it! >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/0472087835 > > BJ is amazed that data and knowledge is a cumulative process. Oddly, jimp while filling a database is a cumulative process, leaps forward in science are not. Odd will explain the principles to you in detail. I presume you've never heard of Alice Mary Stewart or the controversies surrounding her. The less you learn, the stronger your faith,jimp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <njak1f$67d$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #583979 |
"benj" <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote in message news:5758ba46$0$38789$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com... > On 06/08/2016 06:55 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background >>>>>> radiation, >>>>>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I agree with that. >>>> Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher >>>> elevations. >>>> Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation >>>> in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background >>>> radiation >>>> rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. >>>> >>>> Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US >>>> Great >>>> Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of >>>> smoked fish. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >>>>> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >>>>> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >>>>> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >>>>> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >>>>> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. >>>>> >>>>> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >>>>> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >>>>> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >>>>> that of the name-callers. >>> >>> Nail on the head, Boinker! >>> >>> That was Dr. ALICE MARY STEWART, by the way. >>> >>> And just for Boinker: This is a good read! Get a cup of tea and have at >>> it! >>> >>> http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/0472087835 >> >> BJ is amazed that data and knowledge is a cumulative process. > > Oddly, jimp while filling a database is a cumulative process, leaps > forward in science are not. Odd will explain the principles to you in > detail. > > I presume you've never heard of Alice Mary Stewart or the controversies > surrounding her. The less you learn, the stronger your faith,jimp. > WARNING! NON-SCIENCE BABBLING DROOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 02:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <422n2d-s2g.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583979 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/08/2016 06:55 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >>>>>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I agree with that. >>>> Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher elevations. >>>> Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation >>>> in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background radiation >>>> rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. >>>> >>>> Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US Great >>>> Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of >>>> smoked fish. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >>>>> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >>>>> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >>>>> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >>>>> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >>>>> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. >>>>> >>>>> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >>>>> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >>>>> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >>>>> that of the name-callers. >>> >>> Nail on the head, Boinker! >>> >>> That was Dr. ALICE MARY STEWART, by the way. >>> >>> And just for Boinker: This is a good read! Get a cup of tea and have at it! >>> >>> http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/0472087835 >> >> BJ is amazed that data and knowledge is a cumulative process. > > Oddly, jimp while filling a database is a cumulative process, leaps > forward in science are not. Odd will explain the principles to you in > detail. > > I presume you've never heard of Alice Mary Stewart or the controversies > surrounding her. The less you learn, the stronger your faith,jimp. Your presumption is, as usual, nonsense and Alice Mary Stewart is an excellent example of my point that data and knowledge is a cumulative process. Alice Mary Stewart spent years accumulating and analyzing data to reach her conclusions. However, Stewart herself acknowledged that her results were outside the range considered statistically significant and her primary accomplishment is in showing that it takes a lot of good data to get good conclusions. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 02:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57591238$0$7205$b1db1813$15bdbe48@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #584004 |
On 06/08/2016 10:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 06:55 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>>> On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >>>>>>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I agree with that. >>>>> Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher elevations. >>>>> Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation >>>>> in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background radiation >>>>> rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US Great >>>>> Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of >>>>> smoked fish. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >>>>>> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >>>>>> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >>>>>> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >>>>>> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >>>>>> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. >>>>>> >>>>>> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >>>>>> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >>>>>> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >>>>>> that of the name-callers. >>>> >>>> Nail on the head, Boinker! >>>> >>>> That was Dr. ALICE MARY STEWART, by the way. >>>> >>>> And just for Boinker: This is a good read! Get a cup of tea and have at it! >>>> >>>> http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/0472087835 >>> >>> BJ is amazed that data and knowledge is a cumulative process. >> >> Oddly, jimp while filling a database is a cumulative process, leaps >> forward in science are not. Odd will explain the principles to you in >> detail. >> >> I presume you've never heard of Alice Mary Stewart or the controversies >> surrounding her. The less you learn, the stronger your faith,jimp. > > Your presumption is, as usual, nonsense and Alice Mary Stewart is an > excellent example of my point that data and knowledge is a cumulative > process. > > Alice Mary Stewart spent years accumulating and analyzing data to reach > her conclusions. > > However, Stewart herself acknowledged that her results were outside the > range considered statistically significant and her primary accomplishment > is in showing that it takes a lot of good data to get good conclusions. So your premise is that Stewart's results are all bogus admitted by herself and medicine of today that agrees with it is bogus as well. Basically she showed that all radiation is safe and her only contribution is that it takes a lot of data to draw good conclusions. IT is strange though that around here, personal opinion seems sufficient to draw irrefutable science conclusions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntho2d-g3l.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #584024 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/08/2016 10:49 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 06:55 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>>>> On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >>>>>>>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure I agree with that. >>>>>> Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher elevations. >>>>>> Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation >>>>>> in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background radiation >>>>>> rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US Great >>>>>> Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of >>>>>> smoked fish. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >>>>>>> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >>>>>>> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >>>>>>> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >>>>>>> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >>>>>>> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >>>>>>> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >>>>>>> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >>>>>>> that of the name-callers. >>>>> >>>>> Nail on the head, Boinker! >>>>> >>>>> That was Dr. ALICE MARY STEWART, by the way. >>>>> >>>>> And just for Boinker: This is a good read! Get a cup of tea and have at it! >>>>> >>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/0472087835 >>>> >>>> BJ is amazed that data and knowledge is a cumulative process. >>> >>> Oddly, jimp while filling a database is a cumulative process, leaps >>> forward in science are not. Odd will explain the principles to you in >>> detail. >>> >>> I presume you've never heard of Alice Mary Stewart or the controversies >>> surrounding her. The less you learn, the stronger your faith,jimp. >> >> Your presumption is, as usual, nonsense and Alice Mary Stewart is an >> excellent example of my point that data and knowledge is a cumulative >> process. >> >> Alice Mary Stewart spent years accumulating and analyzing data to reach >> her conclusions. >> >> However, Stewart herself acknowledged that her results were outside the >> range considered statistically significant and her primary accomplishment >> is in showing that it takes a lot of good data to get good conclusions. > > So your premise is that Stewart's results are all bogus admitted by > herself and medicine of today that agrees with it is bogus as well. > Basically she showed that all radiation is safe and her only > contribution is that it takes a lot of data to draw good conclusions. As usual, you have gone off into long winded la la land, kook. Once again, Stewart herself acknowledged that her results were outside the range considered statistically significant. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sqfm2d-m4e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583927 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/8/2016 3:59 PM, benj wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> >>> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >>> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. > > I'm not sure I agree with that. > Certain cancer rates are higher among those living in higher elevations. > Certain cancer rates are higher in rocky zones where radon accumulation > in homes is higher. Since both of those are tied to background radiation > rates being higher, then I think there is some clear stats. In both cases the background radiation is higher than the general normal. Ever heard of the word "dose"? > Of course, stomach cancers are also much higher in the northern US Great > Lakes region because of the Scandinavian penchant for eating a lot of > smoked fish. Radiation of any kind accounts for a very small percentage of all cancers, so what is your point? >> So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, >> background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer >> produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these >> statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from >> harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that >> most establishment medicine disagrees with you. I have no theory. I am just observing what the science says, i.e. there is no evidence that normal background radiation causes cancer. As for switching, arsinic, iodine, and selenium are REQUIRED trace elements but are toxic at high levels. The mechanism for this is called "dose". >> I take it you never heard of Mary Stewart. You sound like all the >> establishment doctors who fought her tooth and nail saying she was a >> pseudoscience kook. In the end, however science took her side and not >> that of the name-callers. Yes, we hava a lot more data from which to draw conclusion than we did in 1956; is this a big surprise for you? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkem2d-m4e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583920 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/08/2016 03:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. > > So your theory is that while moderate radiation can cause death, > background radiation does not because ionizing radiation no longer > produces damage to organisms. You really need to back up these > statements that ionizing radiation suddenly switches mechanisms from > harmful to beneficial as the intensity is reduced. You are aware that > most establishment medicine disagrees with you. I have no personal theory, kook. The science says there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful. How do arsenic, iodine, and selenium switch from REQUIRED trace elements to deadly poison, kook? Hint: look up the word "dose" in a real dictionary, i.e. one where the word "gummint" doesn't appear. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 16:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nja3lv$ldk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583900 |
On 6/8/2016 2:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> On 6/8/2016 1:38 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/8/2016 1:01 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/2016 6:48 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> 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. >> >> which the latter ones are ionizing radiation, and UV is just bad > > Actually UVB radiation is neede to produce vitamin D in the body as > very few foods naturally contain vitamin D. > >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/radiationexposureandcancer/index >> >> this subject area is too expansive, that is why I skipped over it with >> an assumption to demonstrate low prob of background ionizing radiation >> causing cancer, but it is there, 24/7 > > As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, > there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. not so, http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1 > >> also it takes a long time for a bad replicating cell to build up into a >> detectable mass, 1 to 2 years breast cancer, and 20 or 40 years for >> others. So many people die of old age can have undetectable cancers, >> like prostrate cancer > > Modern medicine can detect cancers extremely early on and is in fact > one of the reasons that cancer rates have increased; we can now detect > what was previously undetectable. not so, you still have to see calcium build up (a by product of the cells) on xray, to ID and locate it. it can happen in 12 months, go from none, to haveing a lot of cancer. there are several fast cancers, one is via lympth nodes, takes just a few weeks or so. I think we are bouncing around with generalizations on many different types of cancers, so .... > > Prostrate cancers are easily detectable these days, but some forms are > just not treated because the time it would take it to become a problem > is much longer that the persons remaining life expectancy so why bother. > > What greatly muddies the waters is that most people fail to realize > that cancer is not just one disease and appears in MANY forms. true, >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 23:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <avkm2d-ame.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583943 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 6/8/2016 2:44 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>> On 6/8/2016 1:38 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/8/2016 1:01 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2016 6:48 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> 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. >>> >>> which the latter ones are ionizing radiation, and UV is just bad >> >> Actually UVB radiation is neede to produce vitamin D in the body as >> very few foods naturally contain vitamin D. >> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/radiationexposureandcancer/index >>> >>> this subject area is too expansive, that is why I skipped over it with >>> an assumption to demonstrate low prob of background ionizing radiation >>> causing cancer, but it is there, 24/7 >> >> As no one anywhere can point to a body killed by background radiation, >> there is no evidence that background radiation is harmful in any way. > > not so, > > http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1 Still not proven if for nothing other than the simple reason it is impossible to determine rates absent normal background radiation. This just assumes the effect is linear. This may or may not be true, but it is impossible to prove one way or the other. The only thing that is certain is that if normal background radiation causes cancer of any kind, the rate is way down below the level of detection. And there is nothing that could be done about it anyway. >>> also it takes a long time for a bad replicating cell to build up into a >>> detectable mass, 1 to 2 years breast cancer, and 20 or 40 years for >>> others. So many people die of old age can have undetectable cancers, >>> like prostrate cancer >> >> Modern medicine can detect cancers extremely early on and is in fact >> one of the reasons that cancer rates have increased; we can now detect >> what was previously undetectable. > > not so, > you still have to see calcium build up (a by product of the cells) on > xray, to ID and locate it. Nope; you are a bit behind the times. > it can happen in 12 months, go from none, to haveing a lot of cancer. > > there are several fast cancers, one is via lympth nodes, takes just a > few weeks or so. So what? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vymhvnyvalnn$.1uuegf7sl76xq$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #583638 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:59:27 -0500, Sergio wrote:
>
> I would guess cell damage is 99.99% safe.
> very few dammages cells turn into cancer.
>
The percentage of cases turning into disease is
different from cases of cell damage leading to runaway
replication. The immune system is always, everyday,
killing such cells off. This is totally normal.
Cancer develops when immune system either goes low or
gets dysfunctional, and not because there was
radiation, a virus vector, carcinogenic chemicals,
etc. Immune system takes care of all that, but itself
can be lowered by stress, and excessive use when too
much carcinogens / radiation has been present for a
long time.
Find ways to relax and you won't die by cancer. If you
fail in that, you _will_ die of cancer. Radiation or
no radiation.
--
"Jews are full of the devil's feces which
they swallow in like swine."
- Martin Luther (hvac's "thinker")
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 21:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3cselb9e9ctmuqojs70a9fa9in5gk4eoeq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583719 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:00:57 -0500, ClutterFreak wrote: >On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:59:27 -0500, Sergio wrote: > > >> >> I would guess cell damage is 99.99% safe. >> very few dammages cells turn into cancer. >> > >The percentage of cases turning into disease is >different from cases of cell damage leading to runaway >replication. The immune system is always, everyday, >killing such cells off. This is totally normal. > >Cancer develops when immune system either goes low or >gets dysfunctional, and not because there was >radiation, a virus vector, carcinogenic chemicals, >etc. Immune system takes care of all that, but itself >can be lowered by stress, and excessive use when too >much carcinogens / radiation has been present for a >long time. > >Find ways to relax and you won't die by cancer. If you >fail in that, you _will_ die of cancer. Radiation or >no radiation. Nice, calming public service: Don't be afraid of stress because the stress could kill you. http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why-everyone-eventually-gets-cancer/ Given a long enough life, cancer will eventually kill you - unless you die first of something else. How many hypochondriacs do you want to spin up to a full panic attack? Maybe the stress from FUD could give them a heart attack instead of cancer, so you "saved" them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mh0k2d-e06.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583629 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 19:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0melbt3bnjhucnus9sb16qdnutsboea8r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583690 |
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. >> 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." >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." Should we rely on "the settled science" when balancing risks? http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Mercury_FactSheet.html Defining safe levels of mercury in blood continues to be an active research area.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 00:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rg5k2d-2k6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583702 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ffqelb12muihgnu7bb8c8lvq9qsksthu04@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583711 |
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. >>>> 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. >>>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. >Are you going to do your own epidemiological studies? Yet we rely on epidemiological studies by others. Like climastrologists, all pharma researchers are squeaky clean, right? /sarc >> 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2v9k2d-747.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583718 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6buelb5otlr8ddq8vpblko4bnr3r40721q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583731 |
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:45:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >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. See the link above. Repeated here for convenience: http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Mercury_FactSheet.html Defining safe levels of mercury in blood continues to be an active research area. May or may not be in the last 50 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning Blood lead levels once considered safe are now considered hazardous With the number of new chemicals produced in the last 50 years, I would expect many examples to exist within your time frame. Your suggestion that experts have rarely "changed their minds" sounds close to "the science is settled." >What actually happens is with more data, (data from where?) ... and with an increasing number of lawyers in the USA ... >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. Animal studies are done, though frowned on by PETA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 06:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tipk2d-ng8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583738 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:45:38 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>Give a modern, i.e. within the last half century, when experts have >>"changed their minds" on an epidemiological effect. > > See the link above. Repeated here for convenience: > http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Mercury_FactSheet.html > Defining safe levels of mercury in blood continues to be an active > research area. Again, so what? No one has "changed their minds" about the toxicity of mercury, what is being done is that the level that causes no harmful effects is being refined. That is something very different from "changed their minds". > May or may not be in the last 50 years: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning > Blood lead levels once considered safe are now considered hazardous Again, no one has "changed their minds". > With the number of new chemicals produced in the last 50 years, I > would expect many examples to exist within your time frame. No doubt one can find many examples of the science being refined. > Your suggestion that experts have rarely "changed their minds" sounds > close to "the science is settled." Your calling refining levels based on added data "changed their minds" sounds like paranoid arm waving. >>What actually happens is with more data, > > (data from where?) Accidents for one, better instrumentation for another. > ... and with an increasing number of lawyers in the USA ... Which has what to do with science? >>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. > > Animal studies are done, though frowned on by PETA. Mice and rats are NOT little people. You do know theobromine will cause heart attacks in dogs? You do know Tylenol will shut down a cat's liver? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web