Re: How dangerous is radiation?

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

________________________________
 From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: How dangerous is radiation?
 







On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
><everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> You did not read the study I posted did you? 
>
>
>>> No, and I'm quite certain you didn't either,
>
>
>> Actually I did

>>Ivery much doubt that, skimmed it maybe.

We can quibble whether I read your post or not, but does it matter. The series 
of examples you have been presenting are they all from a single study you are 
referencing? Do you have a link to a paper I could read that makes the case you 
are making? 
Whether you believe me or not I am interested in this and in reading more on 
this particular subject.
Chris


> low dosages of Radon gas over a long period of time do lead to significant 
> increase of risk for death by cancer. 
>

High concentrations of Radon most certainly cause cancer, nobody doubts that, 
but what about lower dosages? The difference in Radon concentrations between a 
well ventilated house near the ocean and a poorly ventilated house in a region 
rich in heavy metal ores can vary by a factor of 20,000; and in mine shafts 
Radon concentration can be even higher than that, a lot higher.  


> low dosages of Radon gas over a long period of time do lead to significant 
> increase of risk for death by cancer.
>

Until recently in some poorly ventilated mines the levels of Radon were 
GARGANTUAN, spend one year working in one of them and you'd  receive more 
radiation than any Hiroshima survivor. It's been known for hundreds of years 
that workers in some mines suffered from a strange wasting disease, we know now 
it was radiation poisoning.     
 
> It just seemed to me that you were suggesting that a low dose environment is 
> not dangerous when spread over time.

I want to know if twice the radon causes twice the cancer.  The largest source 
of natural background radiation is Radon.  Places with twice the background 
radiation (like the mountain states verses the gulf states of the USA) don't 
have twice the cancer, they actually have less. So it would seem the answer is 
no. 

But I don't know why we're even talking about Radon, a well operating nuclear 
reactor doesn't emit any and even if it did the contamination wouldn't spread 
far; Radon is an extremely heavy gas that hugs the ground, and it's half life 
is only 3.8 days. So you can put the blame for ALL Radon related deaths on 
mother nature not the nuclear power industry. 




  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.