"Message: 4 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:36:27 -0400 From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Can't Make Pancakes out of Cowflop was Re: Cowflops
"Following your train of thought, that "Junk science is junk science if it ignores contrary - and readily available - facts," it would be appreciated if you would submit your sources of scientific study that substantiate your claim that low dose radiation is a myth and refute the extensive studies of the best minds in the field." "All studies extant, to the knowledge of everyone in this office, have acknowledged that virtually every track of ionized radiation that passes through a cell nucleus (where mutation occurs) carries the potential to damage the nucleus and often does in a manner that is irreparable or repaired wrong (read "mutation")." "The exacting of damage to any nucleus does not depend upon the strength of radiation, whether it be from a low or high dose exposure, but simply that an electron path or track passes through the nucleus." Yes, yes, yes - I am familiar with the CLAIM and the ARGUMENT on which it is based - INTIMATELY familiar. Fortunately for Mankind, the argument fails utterly to satisfy known FACTS, to wit: - commercial aviators experience exposure levels in excess of NRC standards; if they were under NRC jurisdiction they would all have to retire early, having exceeded allowable "life doses" that are based on precisely the arguments that you adduce. - in actuality, however, many have careers spanning decades and including tens of thousands of hours spent at altitudes where ionizing radiation is many times surface background. - but they don't have greater incidence of radiation-related illnesses than any other group in the general population. Therefore the "no safe dose" argument fails. My favorite parallel is to the argument by qualified scientists that meteorite falls were impossible: "stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky." Of course, there were. And there are safe doses of radiation. "Further, perhaps you would care to explain what gives you or any others the right to subject human populations to the more devastating events posed by higher levels of radiation released via inevitable mechanical failures and human error?" I'm not subjecting them to anything - aviators and mountaineers get dosed at higher rates than the NRC allows in the normal course of events. "Increased exposure levels or opportunity for receiving increased exposure is not "acceptable."" You are of course welcome to decide what dose rates YOU are willing to accept, and to travel by surface conveyance and avoid visits to high places. As long as I remain free to choose otherwise, it ain't my business - only your loss. Marc de Piolenc ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
