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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 16:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0o9elb1uu2jnpu4goqgs8c6ics1kl9dujp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583638 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:59:27 -0500, Sergio wrote: >On 6/7/2016 1:39 PM, Wally W. 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? >> >> The third sense is subjective. Would you play Russian Roulette if >> there was "little" risk? >> > >I would guess cell damage is 99.99% safe. >very few dammages cells turn into cancer. > >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 > >assume background radiation rate of 100 counts per second via averaged >body size (probably low) > ># of seconds in 80 years = 2,522,880,000 > >times 100 = 2.5 E+11 hits divide that by 450, take recipical > >you get 1.78 E-9 or 99.999998% chance the gamma will not hit a DNA and >cause a cancer. So with 7 E9 people on the planet, the radiation is not "safe" for 3-ish people by your calculation. >*Additional Credit* >Discuss another way to bound it (hint: cross sectional area)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 16:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <llcelbh4nsjat8mf8updtg33c88v8mth6j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583653 |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:00:26 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:59:27 -0500, Sergio wrote: > >>On 6/7/2016 1:39 PM, Wally W. 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? >>> >>> The third sense is subjective. Would you play Russian Roulette if >>> there was "little" risk? >>> >> >>I would guess cell damage is 99.99% safe. >>very few dammages cells turn into cancer. >> >>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 >> >>assume background radiation rate of 100 counts per second via averaged >>body size (probably low) >> >># of seconds in 80 years = 2,522,880,000 >> >>times 100 = 2.5 E+11 hits divide that by 450, take recipical >> >>you get 1.78 E-9 or 99.999998% chance the gamma will not hit a DNA and >>cause a cancer. > >So with 7 E9 people on the planet, the radiation is not "safe" for >3-ish people by your calculation. Oops, make that: 1.78 E-9 * 7 E9 = 12-ish people. >>*Additional Credit* >>Discuss another way to bound it (hint: cross sectional area) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj7k9a$gq8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583664 |
On 6/7/2016 3:48 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:00:26 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:59:27 -0500, Sergio wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/2016 1:39 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> The third sense is subjective. Would you play Russian Roulette if >>>> there was "little" risk? >>>> >>> I would guess cell damage is 99.99% safe. >>> very few dammages cells turn into cancer. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> assume background radiation rate of 100 counts per second via averaged >>> body size (probably low) >>> >>> # of seconds in 80 years = 2,522,880,000 >>> >>> times 100 = 2.5 E+11 hits divide that by 450, take recipical >>> you get 1.78 E-9 or 99.999998% chance the gamma will not hit a DNA and >>> cause a cancer. >> >> So with 7 E9 people on the planet, the radiation is not "safe" for >> 3-ish people by your calculation. > > Oops, make that: > > 1.78 E-9 * 7 E9 = 12-ish people. hmmm, should be about 450/100,000 * 7 E9 got cancer, 31 million world wide, wonder if that 12 people/second ? or my maths is too fast and loose tonight > >>> *Additional Credit* >>> Discuss another way to bound it (hint: cross sectional area) >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 19:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cflelb56a3k4dh7sm4inbp2fsi9vkkk8sb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583687 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:10:30 -0500, Sergio wrote: >On 6/7/2016 3:48 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 16:00:26 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:59:27 -0500, Sergio wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/7/2016 1:39 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> The third sense is subjective. Would you play Russian Roulette if >>>>> there was "little" risk? >>>>> > >>>> I would guess cell damage is 99.99% safe. >>>> very few dammages cells turn into cancer. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> assume background radiation rate of 100 counts per second via averaged >>>> body size (probably low) >>>> >>>> # of seconds in 80 years = 2,522,880,000 >>>> >>>> times 100 = 2.5 E+11 hits divide that by 450, take recipical > >>>> you get 1.78 E-9 or 99.999998% chance the gamma will not hit a DNA and >>>> cause a cancer. >>> >>> So with 7 E9 people on the planet, the radiation is not "safe" for >>> 3-ish people by your calculation. >> >> Oops, make that: >> >> 1.78 E-9 * 7 E9 = 12-ish people. > >hmmm, should be about 450/100,000 * 7 E9 got cancer, 31 million world wide, >wonder if that 12 people/second ? > or my maths is too fast and loose tonight Me, too. In my quick read, I assumed the 80-year period made the frequency lower, but not zero. Also, adjusting your 100% assumption may lower the frequency. In any case, it seems the risk is not zero. If one **is** a "statistic," it would probably skew the outlier's perception of "safe." >>>> *Additional Credit* >>>> Discuss another way to bound it (hint: cross sectional area) >>> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <843k2d-vb6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583638 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <i6oelbtpmpoinoqh3vri6kqssbdvacpfmj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583705 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:48:56 -0000, 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. This subthread seems to hinge on your statement: On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: ... just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". Where is **the** dictionary? In that dictionary, is there only one definition of the word? If not, which definition in **the** dictionary are you using?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 00:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b15k2d-2k6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583706 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:48:56 -0000, 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. > > This subthread seems to hinge on your statement: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > ... just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". > > Where is **the** dictionary? > > In that dictionary, is there only one definition of the word? > > If not, which definition in **the** dictionary are you using? I presume you are talking about human health. Try this; if something does not cause any detectable harm, it is safe. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o3qelbtq7ckn74a595667jg6aribo523fi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583710 |
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:21:31 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:48:56 -0000, 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. >> >> This subthread seems to hinge on your statement: >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> ... just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". >> >> Where is **the** dictionary? >> >> In that dictionary, is there only one definition of the word? >> >> If not, which definition in **the** dictionary are you using? > >I presume you are talking about human health. > >Try this; if something does not cause any detectable harm, it is safe. We can't always attribute cause-and-effect for maladies with long incubation periods, etc. How about this: Clinically proven to be safe for non-outliers. IOW: It sucks to be an outlier because it is *not* safe for outliers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h67k2d-5q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583715 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:21:31 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:48:56 -0000, 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. >>> >>> This subthread seems to hinge on your statement: >>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> ... just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". >>> >>> Where is **the** dictionary? >>> >>> In that dictionary, is there only one definition of the word? >>> >>> If not, which definition in **the** dictionary are you using? >> >>I presume you are talking about human health. >> >>Try this; if something does not cause any detectable harm, it is safe. > > We can't always attribute cause-and-effect for maladies with long > incubation periods, etc. You mean like Kuru disease with an incubation of 10 to 13 years or rabies with an incubation of less than 1 week to greater than 1 year? > How about this: Clinically proven to be safe for non-outliers. What is a "non-outlier"? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 21:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <85selb15v1la3r6914c53lfk3l6vdl7fmf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #583720 |
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:58:25 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:21:31 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:48:56 -0000, 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. >>>> >>>> This subthread seems to hinge on your statement: >>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> ... just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". >>>> >>>> Where is **the** dictionary? >>>> >>>> In that dictionary, is there only one definition of the word? >>>> >>>> If not, which definition in **the** dictionary are you using? >>> >>>I presume you are talking about human health. >>> >>>Try this; if something does not cause any detectable harm, it is safe. >> >> We can't always attribute cause-and-effect for maladies with long >> incubation periods, etc. > >You mean like Kuru disease with an incubation of 10 to 13 years or >rabies with an incubation of less than 1 week to greater than 1 year? > >> How about this: Clinically proven to be safe for non-outliers. > >What is a "non-outlier"? Let's check what some might say is **the** dictionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonoutlier Alternative forms non-outlier Noun nonoutlier (plural nonoutliers) 1. (statistics) A value which is not an outlier; a value within the general pattern of data
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 01:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7s8k2d-707.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583721 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:58:25 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:21:31 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:48:56 -0000, 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. >>>>> >>>>> This subthread seems to hinge on your statement: >>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:05:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> ... just following the dictionary definition of the word "safe". >>>>> >>>>> Where is **the** dictionary? >>>>> >>>>> In that dictionary, is there only one definition of the word? >>>>> >>>>> If not, which definition in **the** dictionary are you using? >>>> >>>>I presume you are talking about human health. >>>> >>>>Try this; if something does not cause any detectable harm, it is safe. >>> >>> We can't always attribute cause-and-effect for maladies with long >>> incubation periods, etc. >> >>You mean like Kuru disease with an incubation of 10 to 13 years or >>rabies with an incubation of less than 1 week to greater than 1 year? >> >>> How about this: Clinically proven to be safe for non-outliers. >> >>What is a "non-outlier"? > > Let's check what some might say is **the** dictionary: > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonoutlier > Alternative forms > non-outlier > > Noun > nonoutlier (plural nonoutliers) > 1. (statistics) A value which is not an outlier; a value within the > general pattern of data Apply this to the fact that rabies has an incubation period of less than 1 week to greater than 1 year. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 22:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj82tq$1287$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583705 |
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.
another entry is that DNA does not replicate 100% correctly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 01:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5757a8d2$0$46699$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583754 |
On 06/07/2016 11:20 PM, Sergio 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. > > another entry is that DNA does not replicate 100% correctly Hey Sergio, jimp says, "don't worry, be happy!" He is right about one thing though. While radiation can cause problems it's far less a worry than say the third leading cause of death which is medical doctors. Sure, cancer is number two but not all cancer is caused by radiation, in fact it's likely a small proportion of just certain types though much isn't known. But that still makes a strong case that doctors are far more dangerous than radiation. The worst case, obviously being radiation received at a doctor's office. A double whammy of two causes of death.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 06:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kuok2d-ng8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583754 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj9aik$10o0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583806 |
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.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fa5m2d-55d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583821 |
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. 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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj9r2j$3n0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583865 |
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 > > 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 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v59m2d-ccd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583879 |
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. > 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. 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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 16:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57588746$0$25277$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583900 |
On 06/08/2016 03:44 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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nja1ki$hf7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583920 |
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. > > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web