RE: How dangerous is radiation?

Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:30:07 -0700 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 10:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How dangerous is radiation?

 

 

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
<[email protected]> wrote:

 

> All of these studies reference externally received radiation 

 

No they do not. The primary source of natural background radiation is Radon gas 
and people breathe it. Radon is extremely radioactive and it emits alpha 
particles. Alpha rays can be stopped by just a few feet of air or even by the 
dead cells on the surface of your skin, but if the source of of the alpha 
particles is ingested (and it is for Radon gas) then it is by far the most 
damaging form of radiation to living tissue.  

Then why have IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) studies linked 
exposure to Radon gas to increased lung cancer (as well as Leukemia) rates? The 
IARC is the World Health Organization’s source for information on Cancer. Here 
is a link to the very well referenced IARC report that presents clear 
epidemiological evidence based on multiple large multi-year studies of uranium 
and other miners, as well as other studies on indoor Radon. The study concludes 
that there exists sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of Radon-222 and 
its decay products. They unambiguously state that Radon-222 causes lung cancer, 
and that there is a clear linkage to increased risk of Leukemia as well.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100D/mono100D-9.pdf

 

And yet areas with high natural background radiation have fewer cancers than 
places with low natural background radiation. And workers who fabricate fuel 
rods that go into reactors inhale radioactive particles, but they have a lower 
cancer rate than the general population.

There is zero evidence that small amounts of radiation received over a long 
period of time is harmful, in fact all the evidence points in the other 
direction. 

That is simply not true, and the IARC – the World Health Organization source 
for information on cancer – very clearly delineates that instead there exists a 
clear epidemiological causal relationship between Radon-222 and lung Cancer. 

Chris

 

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to