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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8ilbof0b6mos.1u6kjwoqbgrfd$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #583807 |
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:12:13 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> You do know Tylenol will shut down a cat's liver?
Is this true? I've never done it but if true is good
to know. I read somewhere if cats' ears are very hot
they have fever and giving a small amount of fever
reducing human med would help; the article said it
without giving any names for the med. If what you say
is true then it was very stupid of that author not to
mention this.
When my cats have fever I mix in 62.5 mg of
amoxicillin powder per 5-pounds of weight with their
favorite canned food for two days (they're fed twice a
day so this is repeated one more time each day), and
fever promptly goes away. It goes away the first day
but the second day is like our own finishing up of 10
day treatment for them. Then after that I mix in a
little amount of probiotics powder to their canned
food to restore their intestine balance.
Let me know if I'm doing anything wrong! These cats
are "American", so have compassion for them. God
you're disgusting.
--
"America will always side with those whom
she can direct, give orders to and have
those orders obeyed."
- Louis Farrakhan
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn5m2d-55d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583837 |
ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:12:13 -0000, > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> You do know Tylenol will shut down a cat's liver? > > Is this true? Yes. > Let me know if I'm doing anything wrong! You need to do your own research, preferably from a vet source. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57571703$0$55908$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583618 |
On 06/07/2016 02:05 PM, 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> Taking reading lessons from HVAC? He never reads anything but just makes it up too. (He figures nobody will ever check) Safe: "Secure from threat of danger, harm or loss". Safe: Not threatening danger. Since ANY radiation always posts a THREAT of disease, clearly the only "safe" level is NO radiation which we agree is impossible. Next time try actually READING the dictionary rather than just saying to you did, like HVAC does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ar0k2d-e06.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583632 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/07/2016 02:05 PM, 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> > > Taking reading lessons from HVAC? He never reads anything but just makes > it up too. (He figures nobody will ever check) The first sentence was the only thing worth responding to; the rest was babble. > Safe: "Secure from threat of danger, harm or loss". > Safe: Not threatening danger. > > Since ANY radiation always posts a THREAT of disease, clearly the only > "safe" level is NO radiation which we agree is impossible. That is not a proven fact. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 21:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57577743$0$27608$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #583691 |
On 06/07/2016 07:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >> On 06/07/2016 02:05 PM, 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> >> >> Taking reading lessons from HVAC? He never reads anything but just makes >> it up too. (He figures nobody will ever check) > > The first sentence was the only thing worth responding to; the rest > was babble. > >> Safe: "Secure from threat of danger, harm or loss". >> Safe: Not threatening danger. >> >> Since ANY radiation always posts a THREAT of disease, clearly the only >> "safe" level is NO radiation which we agree is impossible. > > That is not a proven fact. What is not a proven fact? That no radiation is impossible? Or that ionizing radiation always poses some change of damage and disease? Obviously in spite of what Wormley, Odd and HVAC say, there are no "proven facts" in science, just the observations that have been made. But you must admit that radiation causing damage is pretty much "settled science", right? Your drooling babble and denials won't change the fact you painted yourself right into a corner. Since you can't deny the dictionary now you try to deny radiation can harm anyone? Did they march YOU through radiation after the bomb test? I think it did something to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 06:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ompk2d-ng8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583729 |
benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > On 06/07/2016 07:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: >>> On 06/07/2016 02:05 PM, 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> >>> >>> Taking reading lessons from HVAC? He never reads anything but just makes >>> it up too. (He figures nobody will ever check) >> >> The first sentence was the only thing worth responding to; the rest >> was babble. >> >>> Safe: "Secure from threat of danger, harm or loss". >>> Safe: Not threatening danger. >>> >>> Since ANY radiation always posts a THREAT of disease, clearly the only >>> "safe" level is NO radiation which we agree is impossible. >> >> That is not a proven fact. > > What is not a proven fact? That no radiation is impossible? Or that > ionizing radiation always poses some change of damage and disease? That ionizing radiation always has some chance of damage. <snip remaining long winded babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68f93ea9-8935-4575-9d8f-06c1e72cfdc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583808 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: [] > > What is not a proven fact? That no radiation is impossible? Or that > > ionizing radiation always poses some change of damage and disease? > > That ionizing radiation always has some chance of damage. [] Ah, so you finally agree ionizing radiation is not safe. Good to know that you can change and learn. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tv6m2d-ccd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583844 |
edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote: > [] >> > What is not a proven fact? That no radiation is impossible? Or that >> > ionizing radiation always poses some change of damage and disease? >> >> That ionizing radiation always has some chance of damage. > [] > > Ah, so you finally agree ionizing radiation is not safe. > Good to know that you can change and learn. Nope. One more time for the slow readers; it is NOT a proven fact that ionizing radiation ALWAYS has some chance of damage. It is a proven fact that ionizing radiation has some chance of damage at some exposure level. The conservative reccomendation of most organization concerned with the topic is that people limit their whole body exposure to less than 0.1 rem/year in addition to the 0.3 rem/year from natural background radiation. Arsenic is an essential dietary trace element but is highly toxic in any other than trace amounts as are iodine, selenium, cobalt, and bromine. Water is toxic in extreme amounts. It is a rule of thumb that the dose makes the poison but it is unknown if radiation follows this rule. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl2mgr3sslyq$.omsubkjiojm1$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #583565 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:10:22 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> there is reasearch that seems to indicate that extremly
> low levels of radiation, much like many other things that are toxic in
> high doses, are beneficial.
Even cancer is beneficial. It is constantly removing
(from the gene pool) large numbers of dolts who cannot
find solutions to their problems effectively enough.
Stress goes up in them and cancer follows.
--
"pAye malakhi nazde soleymAn bordan
eybast valikan honarast az muri"
- Deylami Tonakaboni
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj785n$1re5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583645 |
On 6/7/2016 2:31 PM, ClutterFreak wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:10:22 -0000, > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> there is reasearch that seems to indicate that extremly >> low levels of radiation, much like many other things that are toxic in >> high doses, are beneficial. > > Even cancer is beneficial. It is constantly removing > (from the gene pool) large numbers of dolts who cannot > find solutions to their problems effectively enough. > Stress goes up in them and cancer follows. Solvent Potatoes and his Dehydrated Water Vapor !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vv22xidwculu$.sb8n8lpu1ul7.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #583649 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:43:46 -0500, Sergio wrote:
> On 6/7/2016 2:31 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:10:22 -0000,
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> there is reasearch that seems to indicate that extremly
>>> low levels of radiation, much like many other things that are toxic in
>>> high doses, are beneficial.
>>
>> Even cancer is beneficial. It is constantly removing
>> (from the gene pool) large numbers of dolts who cannot
>> find solutions to their problems effectively enough.
>> Stress goes up in them and cancer follows.
>
> Solvent Potatoes and his Dehydrated Water Vapor !
Not if he enjoys and relaxes that way.
--
"If you always optimize, you'll never be
happy."
- Donald Knuth
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc4efa87-2b2f-48d3-89fc-7d52b022e782@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583565 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-4, ji...@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. [] > -- > Jim Pennino No, logic error. Counter example: a cut is damage to the skin, but which heals. Do you really think that cut because it heal is "safe". ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 23:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u01k2d-e06.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583680 |
edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-4, ji...@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. > > [] >> -- >> Jim Pennino > > No, logic error. > Counter example: a cut is damage to the skin, but which heals. > Do you really think that cut because it heal is "safe". > > ed A cut is obvious damage. Can you point to damage caused by normal background radiation? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af5b62e8-ce9b-45e4-a13a-05131417663b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583692 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:16:07 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-4, ji...@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. > > > > [] > >> -- > >> Jim Pennino > > > > No, logic error. > > Counter example: a cut is damage to the skin, but which heals. > > Do you really think that cut because it heal is "safe". > > > > ed > > A cut is obvious damage. > > Can you point to damage caused by normal background radiation? Are you saying because the damage is at the molecular level, it is safe? Are you saying it is only damage when we can see it? (or measure it directly)? I am not trying to be an alarmist. I certainly think risk must be balanced against benefits. And we exist in a universe full of risks. I am just NOT willing to say that because we cannot SEE the damage,that it is SAFE. Though there may be a level where the risk is tolerable. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <md7m2d-ccd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583803 |
edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:16:07 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> edprochak@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-4, ji...@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. >> > >> > [] >> >> -- >> >> Jim Pennino >> > >> > No, logic error. >> > Counter example: a cut is damage to the skin, but which heals. >> > Do you really think that cut because it heal is "safe". >> > >> > ed >> >> A cut is obvious damage. >> >> Can you point to damage caused by normal background radiation? > > Are you saying because the damage is at the molecular level, > it is safe? If one molecule in the body of an organizim is "damaged", I highly doubt that it would make any difference what so ever to the organizm. Entire cells, not just molecules, are constantly dying and being replaced. That is how biology works. > Are you saying it is only damage when we can see it? > (or measure it directly)? By your definition of damage, life itself is damage. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj99ni$v7n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583692 |
On 6/7/2016 6:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > edprochak@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: >>> Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe. >> >> [] >>> -- >>> Jim Pennino >> >> No, logic error. >> Counter example: a cut is damage to the skin, but which heals. >> Do you really think that cut because it heal is "safe". >> >> ed > > A cut is obvious damage. > > Can you point to damage caused by normal background radiation? > > Cancer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kf7m2d-ccd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #583814 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 6/7/2016 6:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> edprochak@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: > >>>> Which means it is not harmful which by definition means safe. >>> >>> [] >>>> -- >>>> Jim Pennino >>> >>> No, logic error. >>> Counter example: a cut is damage to the skin, but which heals. >>> Do you really think that cut because it heal is "safe". >>> >>> ed >> >> A cut is obvious damage. >> >> Can you point to damage caused by normal background radiation? >> >> > > Cancer. That is just your supposition and not proven. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eaglesondouglas@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 04:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <392278df-de5c-49f8-ab81-daa4052641c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583394 |
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 2:57:47 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > Ionizing > community, and physics-related social issues. I remember Dr. God at the NIST. That is his real name btw. His office was next to mine btw. He discovered the reaction of photosynthesis in plants. This was like in 1995. The charge pump model was the system he discovered allowing the world to use charge pumps. He should be in line for the Nobel Prize. Ultraviolet light causing ionization was no where in the sciences at the time, just to get the perspective right. Now we have correct interpretation of solid state systems. Even Einstein's photoelectric effect was not recognized as an ionization event, because it was an electron emission event. Now work functions apply to state solid ionization. In general the size of the valance electron state determines the ease of ionization. Solids do self ionize as a decay after perturbation. Now 10's of eV are seen in the light of day as cause to ionize. And skin radiation dose occurs from exposure to the sun's light. thanks doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 09:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5q6dnbZhD-7TtsXKnZ2dnUU7-VsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #583791 |
On 6/8/16 6:40 AM, eaglesondouglas@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 2:57:47 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: >> Ionizing >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > I remember Dr. God at the NIST. That is his real name btw. His office was next to mine btw. > > He discovered the reaction of photosynthesis in plants. This was like in 1995. The charge pump model was the system he discovered allowing the world to use charge pumps. He should be in line for the Nobel Prize. > > Ultraviolet light causing ionization was no where in the sciences at the time, just to get the perspective right. Now we have correct interpretation of solid state systems. Even Einstein's photoelectric effect was not recognized as an ionization event, because it was an electron emission event. Now work functions apply to state solid ionization. > > In general the size of the valance electron state determines the ease of ionization. Solids do self ionize as a decay after perturbation. Now 10's of eV are seen in the light of day as cause to ionize. And skin radiation dose occurs from exposure to the sun's light. > > thanks doug > What did you do at NIST, Doug? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eaglesondouglas@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f68fa691-c962-404c-9c7c-8460e5a49f78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583816 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 6/8/16 6:40 AM, eaglesondouglas@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 2:57:47 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> Ionizing > >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > I remember Dr. God at the NIST. That is his real name btw. His office was next to mine btw. > > > > He discovered the reaction of photosynthesis in plants. This was like in 1995. The charge pump model was the system he discovered allowing the world to use charge pumps. He should be in line for the Nobel Prize. > > > > Ultraviolet light causing ionization was no where in the sciences at the time, just to get the perspective right. Now we have correct interpretation of solid state systems. Even Einstein's photoelectric effect was not recognized as an ionization event, because it was an electron emission event. Now work functions apply to state solid ionization. > > > > In general the size of the valance electron state determines the ease of ionization. Solids do self ionize as a decay after perturbation. Now 10's of eV are seen in the light of day as cause to ionize. And skin radiation dose occurs from exposure to the sun's light. > > > > thanks doug > > > > What did you do at NIST, Doug? > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. I was the radiation safety supervisor for the lab, excluding the reactor. It is a personal research supported position that does not require a PhD. I did mainly nuclear theory in my spare time. My biggest challenge was helping by theory design the surface plasmon researcher. It was in the early days of resurrection of the meaning of plasmon in general,1996. I made sure the concept of cell membrane quantum state was placed in theory. Stable plasmon as the correct membrane theory was initiated. I also measured the quantum teleportation of a two-gamma emitting source. And the ultraviolet collapse solution was measured using Cobalt 60. This went into the classified lab system. I am now a consulting health physicist with a true philosopher title. I spent 8 years on sci.physics programmatically to educate young physicists of advanced logic theory. I still have legal issues concerning a theft of a Plutonium H-bomb/satellite power supply. In my first job out of college there was an intelligence theft operation that misdirected the classified movement of a weapon into a commercial nuclear waste stream where I worked. It is such a hot item that I still have a security clearance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web