I'm snipping various parts of this post (lots of "..."s) for brevity.
--- "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote:] >> But I did note in a later post...that it *is* >>possible that normal background radiation helps >> 'prime' immune cells to hunt for mutant cells... > > ...Certainly, one can entertain the idea that normal > background radiation > causes some cells to change in a way that the immune > system recognizes > as `not us' and so goes after them. > > It would seem to me that we have had lots of > experience over the past > century with people receiving doses of radiation > that can be > sufficiently well estimated, such as miners > breathing radon gas in a > mine, so that epidemiological investigations could > be made. I think I posted one such study of uranium miners. > Perhaps they have been made, but the highly > politicized character of > the field has made it very difficult to find them. Unfortunately true. You have to eye both gov't and eco sites knowing that they slanted the data in their favor at least a little bit. (*I* never slant anything at all! :} Well, I do at least admit my bias.) >> The current problem is that defining the line >> between "probably safe dose" and "harmful" is >> controversial; > > Yes, that is a problem -- I think the language is > not helpful; rather > than make an ordered sequence of categories... > ...I think it would be better to drop the word > "probably " and use some > other term, such as "mostly but not entirely". > <snip> > > As a practical matter, a widely accepted authority > has to define what > is considered `more than small' for death rates. > (Traditionally, > religions have done this.) The goal is to define > what is a socially > acceptable death rate. After all `safe' is not a > medical term, but a > description of the level of danger. > > This is a separate issue from determining what the > death rate actually is. And what is considered "safe" by the general public has changed quite a lot in the past 50-100 years; expectations of "perfect safety" have led in some cases to a 'victim mentality' and massive upswing in lawsuits. <grimace> Not immune myself, esp. WRT environmental impact, but I think part of that is the change from our culture's POV before-the-60's of Man As Nature's Master, to Nature Is Being Corrupted By Man POV. Hopefully we'll develop the mature Man As The Jewel In The Crown Of Glorious Nature POV in the not-too-distant future... > According to some of my old notes, such "a widely > accepted authority" > must do something that amounts to a ritual: > > Rituals bring into being certain states of > affairs. "When > authorized persons declare peace in a proper > manner, peace is > declared whether or not the antagonists are > persuaded" to comply. > (p. 189) <snipped rest of quote> > However, currently no one agrees on what should > socially be considered an acceptable death rate. > > But I would like to find out what the actual death > rates are, at least > for processes that can be measured. For example, in > the US, coal > fired electric power plants release radioactive > uranium dust in their > smoke. I have been told that if coal fired electric > power plants had > to meet the same standards for `off-site radiation > release' as nuclear > electric power plants, all the coal fired electric > power plants in the > US would be shut down. But I don't know for sure; > and I don't know the death rates. I don't think such things have been - perhaps at this time cannot be - accurately measured. Most of the epidemiological studies on radiation exposure are based on *calculated* or estimated, rather than actual, exposures. Since no one distributed dosimeters to the general public before the Nevada tests, or Chernobyl... >:P But miners and other *radiation-related workers do wear dosimeters now, so we ought to get some better data soon. Semi-related: I just found out that old Fiestaware pottery was glazed with *uranium-containing slips to make certain orange, red, green and yellow (IIRC) colors...and similarly decorative ceramic tiles of pre-1940s make. There was a flap not-too-long-ago over the potential disposal of low-level *nickel (IIRC) by incorporating it into various consumer products -- it got squelched (as well it ought!!! What were they thinking, to want stuff like table flatware to contain this *metal???). > The other issue is harder: predicting the future. > As far as I know, > whether or not the society can agree an acceptable > death rate, no one > can figure the probability or improbability that > some group of > suicidal soldiers highjacks a large freight carrying > jet and flies it > into a nuclear power plant's spent fuel storage > building and > distributes radioactive materials over the > surroundings. Too true. And as I said before, I don't think the disposal/containment issues (of *waste) have been at all adequately defined or solved. > As for another remark .... > > 5 rads (I think those were the units!) > > Ah! To be so young again.... :-) Well according to the young Mick Jagger, 'I should want to be dead,' a couple of years ago... ;) > Rads are not the original units. > http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/units.html <snip> > And, in another change, people seem to be using > Sieverts more often > nowadays than rems; and I have seen reference to Gy, > too: <snip> Yes, those seem to be more prevalent in some medical studies. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
