Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #895196 > unrolled thread

Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-02-26 06:14 +0000
    Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-02-26 10:15 +0100
      Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Ho Li Phuc <HLP@aol.com> - 2026-02-26 10:44 -0700
        Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-02-26 20:24 +0100
        Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-26 21:17 +0100
          Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-02-27 05:58 +0000
            Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Ho Li Phuc <HLP@aol.com> - 2026-02-27 08:03 -0700
              Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-02-27 09:26 -0600
              Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-28 20:25 +0100
                Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-03-01 07:16 +0000
      Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-26 21:04 +0100
        Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-02-26 22:17 +0100
          Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-02-27 13:41 +0100
      Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants x <x@x.net> - 2026-02-26 12:56 -0800
        Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-02-27 05:39 +0000
          Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Ho Li Phuc <HLP@aol.com> - 2026-02-27 11:52 -0700
          Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants x <x@x.net> - 2026-03-05 11:28 -0800
            Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-03-06 06:04 +0000
        Re: Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Ho Li Phuc <HLP@aol.com> - 2026-02-27 11:50 -0700

#895196 — Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants

Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants
Date:
 February 24, 2026
Source:
 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
 A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death rates than those farther away. 
 Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education, smoking, obesity, 
 environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after accounting for those factors, 
 cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, particularly among older adults.

Link:
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm

Paper, free download pdf:
 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4

So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#895197

On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants
> Date:
>   February 24, 2026
> Source:
>   Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
> Summary:
>   A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death rates than those farther away.
>   Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education, smoking, obesity,
>   environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after accounting for those factors,
>   cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, particularly among older adults.
> 
> Link:
>    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
> 
> Paper, free download pdf:
>   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
> 
> So, scaring people or for real?
> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
> 

TLDR.

There was this study that was published in the French popular science
periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.

Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
a word about the statistical significance of that result.

Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.

Jeroen Belleman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895198

On 2/26/2026 2:15 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power 
>> plants
>> Date:
>>   February 24, 2026
>> Source:
>>   Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>> Summary:
>>   A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located 
>> closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death 
>> rates than those farther away.
>>   Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. 
>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education, 
>> smoking, obesity,
>>   environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after 
>> accounting for those factors,
>>   cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, 
>> particularly among older adults.
>>
>> Link:
>>    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>
>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>
>> So, scaring people or for real?
>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>
> 
> TLDR.
> 
> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
> 
> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
> 
> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
> 
> Jeroen Belleman

I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from 
lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay 
Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for 
automobiles back in the 20th century.  The findings resulted in a ban on 
leaded gasoline in the United States.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895199

On 26/02/2026 18:44, Ho Li Phuc wrote:
> On 2/26/2026 2:15 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power 
>>> plants
>>> Date: February 24, 2026
<snip>
>>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>>   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>>
>>> So, scaring people or for real?
>>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>
>> TLDR.
>>
>> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
>> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
>> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
>> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
>>
>> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
>> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
>> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
<snip>
> 
> I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from 
> lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay 
> Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for 
> automobiles back in the 20th century.  The findings resulted in a ban on 
> leaded gasoline in the United States.

Polluting/polluted, poisoning/poisoned.

Indeed our culture is not any less polluted
than our nature (the "environment") is: not
per chance we just keep talking about it
meanwhile we... "survive"?

Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895201

Ho Li Phuc wrote:
> I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from 
> lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay 
> Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for 
> automobiles back in the 20th century.  The findings resulted in a ban on 
> leaded gasoline in the United States.

Interesting.  However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect
horses.  Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly
humans.  So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the
air and ground water, for example.

Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of
the 1990s.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895209

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
>>Ho Li Phuc wrote:
>> I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from 
>> lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay 
>> Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for 
>> automobiles back in the 20th century.  The findings resulted in a ban on 
>> leaded gasoline in the United States.
>
>Interesting.  However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect
>horses.  Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly
>humans.  So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the
>air and ground water, for example.
>
>Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of
>the 1990s.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>


:-)
I have been working with 60/40 solder (lead/tin) as a kid since the early fifties.
Almost 80 now, still using it:
 https://panteltje.nl/pub/soldering_iron_tip_cleaning_IMG_6610.JPG

There was an interesting article on the effect of lead on the Neanderthals a while back,
those died out because of lead exposure, we survived:
 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251015230952.htm

Lead in water pipes..
 https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water


Traffic is more dangerous... kills more..

Medical errors do too

COVID, trump using Fauci's illegal bat experiments,
It's a wild world!!!

Kennedy stopping vaccinations ..
nutcase leaders committing genocide...
Darwin rules
One ant heap against the other
What will come of WW3?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895211

On 2/26/2026 10:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
>>> Ho Li Phuc wrote:
>>> I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
>>> lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
>>> Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
>>> automobiles back in the 20th century.  The findings resulted in a ban on
>>> leaded gasoline in the United States.
>>
>> Interesting.  However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect
>> horses.  Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly
>> humans.  So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the
>> air and ground water, for example.
>>
>> Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of
>> the 1990s.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>
> 
> 
> :-)
> I have been working with 60/40 solder (lead/tin) as a kid since the early fifties.
> Almost 80 now, still using it:
>   https://panteltje.nl/pub/soldering_iron_tip_cleaning_IMG_6610.JPG
> 
> There was an interesting article on the effect of lead on the Neanderthals a while back,
> those died out because of lead exposure, we survived:
>   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251015230952.htm
> 
> Lead in water pipes..
>   https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water
> 
> 
> Traffic is more dangerous... kills more..
> 
> Medical errors do too
> 
> COVID, trump using Fauci's illegal bat experiments,
> It's a wild world!!!
> 
> Kennedy stopping vaccinations ..
> nutcase leaders committing genocide...
> Darwin rules
> One ant heap against the other
> What will come of WW3?
> 
> 

There were claims by "experts" in the post World War II era that 
inner-city African-American children would eat the chips of falling 
apart plaster in old houses that contained lead from paint due to 
hunger. It was claimed by these "experts" that the lead exposure from 
eating the paint flakes lowered the IQ of these inner city children by 
10 to 20 points.

-- 
“MAGA = Miriam Adelson Governs America”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895212

 Ho Li Phuc writes:
> There were claims by "experts" in the post World War II era that
> inner-city African-American children would eat the chips of falling
> apart plaster in old houses that contained lead from paint due to
> hunger.

Not hunger. Old paint sheds dust.  Small children often lick random
things and put all sorts of stuff in their mouths.  They then ingest
lead dust from lead paint.

> It was claimed by these "experts" that the lead exposure from eating
> the paint flakes lowered the IQ of these inner city children by 10 to
> 20 points.

While there is little doubt that there is an impact estimates of the
size of that impact are guesswork.


-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895239

Ho Li Phuc wrote:
> On 2/26/2026 10:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
>>>> Ho Li Phuc wrote:
>>>> I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
>>>> lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
>>>> Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
>>>> automobiles back in the 20th century.  The findings resulted in a ban on
>>>> leaded gasoline in the United States.
>>>
>>> Interesting.  However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect
>>> horses.  Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly
>>> humans.  So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the
>>> air and ground water, for example.
>>>
>>> Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of
>>> the 1990s.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>
>>
>> :-)
>> I have been working with 60/40 solder (lead/tin) as a kid since the early fifties.
>> Almost 80 now, still using it:
>>   https://panteltje.nl/pub/soldering_iron_tip_cleaning_IMG_6610.JPG

Lead poisoning in combination with old age might explain your mindbogglingly
stupid behavior, such as crossposting without Followup-To, as well as your
other stupid claims :->

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder#Lead-based>

"Tin-lead (Sn-Pb) solders, also called soft solders, are commercially
available with tin concentrations between 5% and 70% by weight. The greater
the tin concentration, the greater the solder's tensile and shear strengths.
Lead mitigates the formation of tin whiskers,[7] though the precise
mechanism for this is unknown.[8] Today, many techniques are used to
mitigate the problem, including changes to the annealing process (heating
and cooling), addition of elements like copper and nickel, and the
application of conformal coatings.[9] Alloys commonly used for electrical
soldering are 60/40 Sn-Pb, which melts at 188 °C (370 °F),[10] and 63/37
Sn-Pb used principally in electrical/electronic work. The latter mixture is
a eutectic alloy of these metals, which:

  1. has the lowest melting point (183 °C or 361 °F) of all the tin-lead
     alloys; and
  2. the melting point is truly a point — not a range.

In the United States, since 1974, lead is prohibited in solder and flux in
plumbing applications for drinking water use, per the Safe Drinking Water
Act.[11] Historically, a higher proportion of lead was used, commonly 50/50.
This had the advantage of making the alloy solidify more slowly. With the
pipes being physically fitted together before soldering, the solder could be
wiped over the joint to ensure water tightness. Although lead water pipes
were displaced by copper when the significance of lead poisoning began to be
fully appreciated, lead solder was still used until the 1980s because it was
thought that the amount of lead that could leach into water from the solder
was negligible from a properly soldered joint. The electrochemical couple of
copper and lead promotes corrosion of the lead and tin. Tin, however, is
protected by insoluble oxide. Since even small amounts of lead have been
found detrimental to health as a potent neurotoxin,[12] lead in plumbing
solder was replaced by silver (food-grade applications) or antimony, with
copper often added, and the proportion of tin was increased (see lead-free
solder)."

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895259

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
>>Ho Li Phuc wrote:
>> On 2/26/2026 10:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
>>>>> Ho Li Phuc wrote:
>>>>> I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
>>>>> lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
>>>>> Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
>>>>> automobiles back in the 20th century.  The findings resulted in a ban on
>>>>> leaded gasoline in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting.  However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect
>>>> horses.  Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly
>>>> humans.  So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the
>>>> air and ground water, for example.
>>>>
>>>> Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of
>>>> the 1990s.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>
>>>
>>> :-)
>>> I have been working with 60/40 solder (lead/tin) as a kid since the early fifties.
>>> Almost 80 now, still using it:
>>>   https://panteltje.nl/pub/soldering_iron_tip_cleaning_IMG_6610.JPG
>
>Lead poisoning in combination with old age might explain your mindbogglingly
>stupid behavior, such as crossposting without Followup-To, as well as your
>other stupid claims :->

You are a bit of a new-comer on Usenet it seems
 https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/index.html
Keep your insults to yourself, or to trump LOL.

So far you just have been spouting crap, try reading:

Key Usenet RFCs
RFC NUMBER        TITLE        DATE        DESCRIPTION
RFC 822                Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages        Aug 13, 1982        Defines the format for text messages in the ARPA Internet, serving as a basis for Usenet messages.
RFC 850                Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages        June 1983        Establishes the standard format for the interchange of Usenet messages among hosts.
RFC 977                Network News Transfer Protocol        Feb 1, 1986        Proposes a protocol for the distribution and retrieval of news articles among Usenet hosts.
RFC 1036        Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages        Dec 1987        Updates RFC 850, reflecting changes in the Usenet message format and transmission standards.

And then write the code, your own newsreader, and publish it here!!!
Same for all other stuff you know now shit about.
Else shut up and start filling the vacuum between your donkey ears!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895200

[F'up2 sci.physics]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
>> plants
>>
>> Date:
>>   February 24, 2026
>> Source:
>>   Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>> Summary:
>>   A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S.
>>   counties located closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher
>>   cancer death rates than those farther away. Researchers analyzed data
>>   from every nuclear facility and all U.S. counties between 2000 and
>>   2018, adjusting for income, education, smoking, obesity, environmental
>>   conditions, and access to health care. Even after accounting for those
>>   factors, cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear
>>   plants, particularly among older adults.
>> 
>> Link:
>>   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>> 
>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>> 
>> So, scaring people or for real? I thought radiation was used against
>> cancer?

*Focused* (usually particle) radiation (protons, electrons) is used in the
treatment of cancer because a *focused* beam is targeted at tumor cells
*only* (its energy is chosen such that it deposits most of its energy at the
depth where the tumor is).  (For that reason, particle accelerators are
often involved in the treatment.)

Widespread, *uncontrolled*, ionizing radiation (e.g. gamma radiation)
affects non-tumor cells as well.

In summary, ionizing radiation damages or destroys DNA, and is thus hostile
to life as we know it, because e.g. by ejecting electrons it destroys
molecular bonds.  It depends on which cells and how many are affected by it
whether that has a positive or negative effect on an individual's health.
For example, it is quite possible that a low dosage of ionizing radiation
leads to mutations (due to errors when duplicating DNA) that turn out to be
evolutionary advantageous.  But that is not the case here.

> TLDR.

So you are merely arguing from your own ignorance.

> There was this study that was published in the French popular science 
> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found 
> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague 
> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
> 
> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected 
> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not a
> word about the statistical significance of that result.

Cite evidence.

> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.

The report is from ScienceDaily, not "Science & Vie"; the referred paper was
published in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed open-access scientific
journal with a high quality rating.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895205

On 2/26/26 21:04, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [F'up2 sci.physics]
> 
> Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
>>> plants
>>>
>>> Date:
>>>    February 24, 2026
>>> Source:
>>>    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>>> Summary:
>>>    A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S.
>>>    counties located closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher
>>>    cancer death rates than those farther away. Researchers analyzed data
>>>    from every nuclear facility and all U.S. counties between 2000 and
>>>    2018, adjusting for income, education, smoking, obesity, environmental
>>>    conditions, and access to health care. Even after accounting for those
>>>    factors, cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear
>>>    plants, particularly among older adults.
>>>
>>> Link:
>>>    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>>
>>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>>    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>>
>>> So, scaring people or for real? I thought radiation was used against
>>> cancer?
> 
> *Focused* (usually particle) radiation (protons, electrons) is used in the
> treatment of cancer because a *focused* beam is targeted at tumor cells
> *only* (its energy is chosen such that it deposits most of its energy at the
> depth where the tumor is).  (For that reason, particle accelerators are
> often involved in the treatment.)
> 
> Widespread, *uncontrolled*, ionizing radiation (e.g. gamma radiation)
> affects non-tumor cells as well.
> 
> In summary, ionizing radiation damages or destroys DNA, and is thus hostile
> to life as we know it, because e.g. by ejecting electrons it destroys
> molecular bonds.  It depends on which cells and how many are affected by it
> whether that has a positive or negative effect on an individual's health.
> For example, it is quite possible that a low dosage of ionizing radiation
> leads to mutations (due to errors when duplicating DNA) that turn out to be
> evolutionary advantageous.  But that is not the case here.
> 
>> TLDR.
> 
> So you are merely arguing from your own ignorance.
> 
>> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
>> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
>> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
>> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
>>
>> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
>> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not a
>> word about the statistical significance of that result.
> 
> Cite evidence.
> 
>> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
>> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
> 
> The report is from ScienceDaily, not "Science & Vie"; the referred paper was
> published in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed open-access scientific
> journal with a high quality rating.
> 

I'm not totally ignorant of radiation and its effects. I've been
a radiation worker for 30 years myself. What most people do not
know is that we are all exposed to natural radiation at a rate of
roughly 10 uSv/day. The added effect of artificial radiation on
the general population is usually negligible.

Jeroen Belleman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895210

Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, as shown below.

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

> I'm not totally ignorant of radiation and its effects. I've been
> a radiation worker for 30 years myself.

What do you mean by that?

> What most people do not know is that we are all exposed to natural radiation
> at a rate of roughly 10 uSv/day.

There is natural _radioactivity_ which you are probably referring to by your
figure.

> The added effect of artificial radiation on
> the general population is usually negligible.

That is false, as shown by many (even recent) examples.

I will post a detailed response later, do not have time for that now.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895203

On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power 
>> plants
>> Date:
>>   February 24, 2026
>> Source:
>>   Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>> Summary:
>>   A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located 
>> closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death 
>> rates than those farther away.
>>   Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. 
>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education, 
>> smoking, obesity,
>>   environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after 
>> accounting for those factors,
>>   cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, 
>> particularly among older adults.
>>
>> Link:
>>    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>
>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>
>> So, scaring people or for real?
>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>
> 
> TLDR.
> 
> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
> 
> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
> 
> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
> 
> Jeroen Belleman

There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
might include persons who work in the plant.  Some of them might
have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.

If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
increase there.  If you do, then is that subtraction viable?

There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation.  I am
thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
source of exposure.  How significant is it?  Well it might not be 
obvious because these measurements might have highly different
magnitudes of intensity or concentration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895208

>x <x@x.net>wrote:
>>On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power 
>>> plants
>>> Date:
>>>   February 24, 2026
>>> Source:
>>>   Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>>> Summary:
>>>   A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located 
>>> closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death 
>>> rates than those farther away.
>>>   Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. 
>>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education, 
>>> smoking, obesity,
>>>   environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after 
>>> accounting for those factors,
>>>   cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, 
>>> particularly among older adults.
>>>
>>> Link:
>>>    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>>
>>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>>   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>>
>>> So, scaring people or for real?
>>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>>
>> 
>> TLDR.
>> 
>> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
>> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
>> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
>> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
>> 
>> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
>> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
>> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
>> 
>> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
>> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
>> 
>> Jeroen Belleman
>
>There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
>might include persons who work in the plant.  Some of them might
>have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
>
>If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
>increase there.  If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
>
>There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
>various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation.  I am
>thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
>source of exposure.  How significant is it?  Well it might not be 
>obvious because these measurements might have highly different
>magnitudes of intensity or concentration.

Yes
I moved house a few years ago:
 https://panteltje.nl/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
  background radiation is higher here.

I log radiation 24/7
We had Chernobyl fallout here (Netherlands) and you were advised not to eat stuff from your garden.
Where I worked in those days the filters in the aircos had to be replaced as those were 'hot'.
Imagine what you were breathing all day outside!

In an other place where I worked many years later (large accelerator in Amsterdam) the whole place got contaminated
lucky a few years after I left there.
There is a whole story about that, 'carelessness' a reason in my view.

Anyways I decided a make a small radiation logger with GPS recorder so as to be able to see where I was and where the Uranium was .. (joke).
But you could use it for prospecting.
 https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/

It is an interesting subject.
Have designed an build a gamma spectrometer (PMT based) too, to see just what is radiating.
Played with that stuff in the past:
 https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/ 
There is also a discussion group on that topic GammaSpectroscopy in groups.io:
 https://groups.io/g/GammaSpectroscopy

Anyways, will be 80 years old in a few month from now,
still running around.

There was an interview with some guy in Chernobyl who had shot some deer and mounted the head of it on the wall, it was very radioactive.
Reporter asked him:
 "Are you not afraid to sit under that radiating thing?"
His reply was:
 "It is good for your cancer"
 
So, and all the astronauts who have been exposed to high energy particles, some got really old..
Pilots flying at high altitudes, 

Some lifeforms have survived outside of the ISS.
Life is everywhere, we are stardust

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895214

On 2/26/2026 10:39 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> x <x@x.net>wrote:
>>> On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
>>>> plants
>>>> Date:
>>>>    February 24, 2026
>>>> Source:
>>>>    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>>>> Summary:
>>>>    A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
>>>> closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
>>>> rates than those farther away.
>>>>    Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S.
>>>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
>>>> smoking, obesity,
>>>>    environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
>>>> accounting for those factors,
>>>>    cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants,
>>>> particularly among older adults.
>>>>
>>>> Link:
>>>>     https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>>>
>>>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>>>    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>>>
>>>> So, scaring people or for real?
>>>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> TLDR.
>>>
>>> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
>>> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
>>> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
>>> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
>>>
>>> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
>>> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
>>> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
>>>
>>> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
>>> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>> There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
>> might include persons who work in the plant.  Some of them might
>> have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
>>
>> If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
>> increase there.  If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
>>
>> There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
>> various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation.  I am
>> thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
>> source of exposure.  How significant is it?  Well it might not be
>> obvious because these measurements might have highly different
>> magnitudes of intensity or concentration.
> 
> Yes
> I moved house a few years ago:
>   https://panteltje.nl/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
>    background radiation is higher here.
> 
> I log radiation 24/7
> We had Chernobyl fallout here (Netherlands) and you were advised not to eat stuff from your garden.
> Where I worked in those days the filters in the aircos had to be replaced as those were 'hot'.
> Imagine what you were breathing all day outside!
> 
> In an other place where I worked many years later (large accelerator in Amsterdam) the whole place got contaminated
> lucky a few years after I left there.
> There is a whole story about that, 'carelessness' a reason in my view.
> 
> Anyways I decided a make a small radiation logger with GPS recorder so as to be able to see where I was and where the Uranium was .. (joke).
> But you could use it for prospecting.
>   https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
> 
> It is an interesting subject.
> Have designed an build a gamma spectrometer (PMT based) too, to see just what is radiating.
> Played with that stuff in the past:
>   https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
> There is also a discussion group on that topic GammaSpectroscopy in groups.io:
>   https://groups.io/g/GammaSpectroscopy
> 
> Anyways, will be 80 years old in a few month from now,
> still running around.
> 
> There was an interview with some guy in Chernobyl who had shot some deer and mounted the head of it on the wall, it was very radioactive.
> Reporter asked him:
>   "Are you not afraid to sit under that radiating thing?"
> His reply was:
>   "It is good for your cancer"
>   
> So, and all the astronauts who have been exposed to high energy particles, some got really old..
> Pilots flying at high altitudes,
> 
> Some lifeforms have survived outside of the ISS.
> Life is everywhere, we are stardust

Insider reveals nuke industry facts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAGXqXfTwms

-- 
“MAGA = Miriam Adelson Governs America”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895325

On 2/26/26 21:39, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> x <x@x.net>wrote:
>>> On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
>>>> plants
>>>> Date:
>>>>    February 24, 2026
>>>> Source:
>>>>    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>>>> Summary:
>>>>    A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
>>>> closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
>>>> rates than those farther away.
>>>>    Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S.
>>>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
>>>> smoking, obesity,
>>>>    environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
>>>> accounting for those factors,
>>>>    cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants,
>>>> particularly among older adults.
>>>>
>>>> Link:
>>>>     https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>>>
>>>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>>>    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>>>
>>>> So, scaring people or for real?
>>>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> TLDR.
>>>
>>> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
>>> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
>>> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
>>> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
>>>
>>> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
>>> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
>>> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
>>>
>>> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
>>> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>> There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
>> might include persons who work in the plant.  Some of them might
>> have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
>>
>> If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
>> increase there.  If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
>>
>> There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
>> various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation.  I am
>> thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
>> source of exposure.  How significant is it?  Well it might not be
>> obvious because these measurements might have highly different
>> magnitudes of intensity or concentration.
> 
> Yes
> I moved house a few years ago:
>   https://panteltje.nl/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
>    background radiation is higher here.
> 
> I log radiation 24/7
> We had Chernobyl fallout here (Netherlands) and you were advised not to eat stuff from your garden.
> Where I worked in those days the filters in the aircos had to be replaced as those were 'hot'.
> Imagine what you were breathing all day outside!
> 
> In an other place where I worked many years later (large accelerator in Amsterdam) the whole place got contaminated
> lucky a few years after I left there.
> There is a whole story about that, 'carelessness' a reason in my view.
> 
> Anyways I decided a make a small radiation logger with GPS recorder so as to be able to see where I was and where the Uranium was .. (joke).
> But you could use it for prospecting.
>   https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
> 
> It is an interesting subject.
> Have designed an build a gamma spectrometer (PMT based) too, to see just what is radiating.
> Played with that stuff in the past:
>   https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
> There is also a discussion group on that topic GammaSpectroscopy in groups.io:
>   https://groups.io/g/GammaSpectroscopy
> 
> Anyways, will be 80 years old in a few month from now,
> still running around.
> 
> There was an interview with some guy in Chernobyl who had shot some deer and mounted the head of it on the wall, it was very radioactive.
> Reporter asked him:
>   "Are you not afraid to sit under that radiating thing?"
> His reply was:
>   "It is good for your cancer"
>   
> So, and all the astronauts who have been exposed to high energy particles, some got really old..
> Pilots flying at high altitudes,
> 
> Some lifeforms have survived outside of the ISS.
> Life is everywhere, we are stardust

You know there are different orders of magnitude for radiation
both ionizing and non-ionizing.

There is supposed to be something called the irradiation of food.

I am not sure if that is supposed to be something like sterilization
or something like pasteurization.

Maybe I should look that up some.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895343

>x <x@x.net>wrote:
>>On 2/26/26 21:39, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> x <x@x.net>wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
>>>>> plants
>>>>> Date:
>>>>>    February 24, 2026
>>>>> Source:
>>>>>    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>>    A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
>>>>> closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
>>>>> rates than those farther away.
>>>>>    Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S.
>>>>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
>>>>> smoking, obesity,
>>>>>    environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
>>>>> accounting for those factors,
>>>>>    cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants,
>>>>> particularly among older adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Link:
>>>>>     https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>>>>    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>>>>
>>>>> So, scaring people or for real?
>>>>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TLDR.
>>>>
>>>> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
>>>> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
>>>> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
>>>> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
>>>>
>>>> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
>>>> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
>>>> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
>>>>
>>>> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
>>>> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>
>>> There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
>>> might include persons who work in the plant.  Some of them might
>>> have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
>>>
>>> If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
>>> increase there.  If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
>>>
>>> There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
>>> various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation.  I am
>>> thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
>>> source of exposure.  How significant is it?  Well it might not be
>>> obvious because these measurements might have highly different
>>> magnitudes of intensity or concentration.
>> 
>> Yes
>> I moved house a few years ago:
>>   https://panteltje.nl/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
>>    background radiation is higher here.
>> 
>> I log radiation 24/7
>> We had Chernobyl fallout here (Netherlands) and you were advised not to eat stuff from your garden.
>> Where I worked in those days the filters in the aircos had to be replaced as those were 'hot'.
>> Imagine what you were breathing all day outside!
>> 
>> In an other place where I worked many years later (large accelerator in Amsterdam) the whole place got contaminated
>> lucky a few years after I left there.
>> There is a whole story about that, 'carelessness' a reason in my view.
>> 
>> Anyways I decided a make a small radiation logger with GPS recorder so as to be able to see where I was and where the Uranium
>> was .. (joke).
>> But you could use it for prospecting.
>>   https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
>> 
>> It is an interesting subject.
>> Have designed an build a gamma spectrometer (PMT based) too, to see just what is radiating.
>> Played with that stuff in the past:
>>   https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
>> There is also a discussion group on that topic GammaSpectroscopy in groups.io:
>>   https://groups.io/g/GammaSpectroscopy
>> 
>> Anyways, will be 80 years old in a few month from now,
>> still running around.
>> 
>> There was an interview with some guy in Chernobyl who had shot some deer and mounted the head of it on the wall, it was very
>> radioactive.
>> Reporter asked him:
>>   "Are you not afraid to sit under that radiating thing?"
>> His reply was:
>>   "It is good for your cancer"
>>   
>> So, and all the astronauts who have been exposed to high energy particles, some got really old..
>> Pilots flying at high altitudes,
>> 
>> Some lifeforms have survived outside of the ISS.
>> Life is everywhere, we are stardust
>
>You know there are different orders of magnitude for radiation
>both ionizing and non-ionizing.
>
>There is supposed to be something called the irradiation of food.
>
>I am not sure if that is supposed to be something like sterilization
>or something like pasteurization.
>
>Maybe I should look that up some.

It is an interesting subject!
As I designed and build my own gamma spectrometer, 
 https://panteltje.nl/pub/gamma_spectrometer_plus_probe_plus_geiger_counter_2_IMG_4185.JPG
I was wondering how much those cost on ebay.
After some searching I found this French website (sells on ebay too):

 https://deepace.net/

From that site:
RADIATION ANALYZER
KC761 Radiation Analyzer
Handheld gamma spectrometer with a 2.54 cm³ CsI sensor and a 16 mm² PIN α window for fast field verification.

2.54 cm³ CsI sensor
5.9% FWHM
α window, 16 mm² PIN
Neutron option
AA battery powered
Bluetooth + network
IP65

Few hundred dollars, the one with the neutron detector is 1100 Euro or so
Wonder how they make it all so small (I use big xintilation crystals and a PMT).
But for survival to know what is radiating (and so the half-life of the source) it is cool.

Neutrinos pass through us all the time too, one in many does some interaction?
If space is filled with those and 'photons' encounter those then 'tired light' (redhift) would happen?
and maybe all the expanding universe big bang 'constants' would differ.
Like that CERN paper Jeroen mentioned about space filled with a fluid?

I would like to build my own neutron spectrometer too.
Would have to look into that..

Maybe I should buy the deepace.net neutron one ;-)
 https://deepace.net/products/kc761-radiation-analyzer/


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#895213

On 2/26/2026 1:56 PM, x wrote:
> On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power 
>>> plants
>>> Date:
>>>   February 24, 2026
>>> Source:
>>>   Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
>>> Summary:
>>>   A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located 
>>> closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death 
>>> rates than those farther away.
>>>   Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. 
>>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education, 
>>> smoking, obesity,
>>>   environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after 
>>> accounting for those factors,
>>>   cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear 
>>> plants, particularly among older adults.
>>>
>>> Link:
>>>    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
>>>
>>> Paper, free download pdf:
>>>   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
>>>
>>> So, scaring people or for real?
>>> I thought radiation was used against cancer?
>>>
>>
>> TLDR.
>>
>> There was this study that was published in the French popular science
>> periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
>> triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
>> nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
>>
>> Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
>> cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
>> a word about the statistical significance of that result.
>>
>> Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
>> getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
>>
>> Jeroen Belleman
> 
> There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
> might include persons who work in the plant.  Some of them might
> have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
> 
> If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
> increase there.  If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
> 
> There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
> various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation.  I am
> thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
> source of exposure.  How significant is it?  Well it might not be 
> obvious because these measurements might have highly different
> magnitudes of intensity or concentration.
> 
> 
> 

Somewhat on topic:

The Plan To Kill Humanity: Total Extermination Is REAL | Drs. I. Hughes 
& S. Starr

For 80 years our leaders have been working on the weapons and the plans 
to exterminate the planet and kill us all. And they got very good at it. 
Professor Ivana Hughes and Professor Steven Starr explain in this 
masterful presentation what nuclear war really means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBIt8J_Vs1Y

-- 
“MAGA = Miriam Adelson Governs America”

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web