> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This report is cited by both 'sides,' so it must > > be correct!
Maybe I should have put a smiley here? ;) > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389834/ > > Even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of > cancer > > over a person's lifetime, a National Academy of > > Sciences panel concluded. It rejected some > scientists' > > arguments that tiny doses are harmless or may in > > fact be beneficial... <snip> > But, alas, just general conclusions are given. I've > seen papers arguing > that the effect is seen when proper data cuts and > compensations for other > factors are made, but I'd like to see how they were > done. So far, I've had > no luck with finding such explainations. <nods> Data still inconclusive, I agree. My conservative (in the medical sense) side comes down on the 'first do no harm' principle. Not sure if it was coincidence or not, but last night one of the PBS stations reran a 'what if a dirty bomb went off in London' program... Debbi Condolences To Those Across The Pond Maru :( ____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
