[ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 195, Issue 4

[al at solidsurfacealliance.org]

Steven,
 
The links were to back up the amount of potassium in the average human body which were used in my calculations. I asserted that Mr. Connell was off on his calculations of 150 grams and provided a link to show just how sloppy his arguments were. Not that getting an average concentration off by one third is too bad, it is the lack of attention to detail that pervades his posting.
 
The second link to docstoc was to show the ratio of K40 to stable potassium isotopes. In case you missed that point (which appears to be the case), 99.988% of potassium is non radioactive but Mr. Connell is using "killer milk" to buttress his attempts to make radon seem innocuous. I believe that this merely confuses people on radiation facts rather than makes a valid point.
 
The physics.isu.edu link was to prove the potassium total activity in the body and it also provided the half life of potassium (which came out garbled in my post due to the browser, it is 1.28 x 10 to the 9th year). Again you missed the nuances as I thought you would but rather than bore this august assembly with a long explanation, I provided links so that you wouldn't fall behind further in the discussion. I apologize if I offended you in some manner for providing the links.....
I am sure though that the Idaho State University will be quite pleased that you found no factual errors at their web page. However, they will likely be absolutely stunned at your revelations of clumsy sentence structure and clumsy phraseology. No doubt heads will roll over this abhorrent lack of proof reading that lead to, as you put it, the embarrassment of the University. I suppose your point is that we should discount anything we find there as suspect or lacking in credibility. Let me think about that.
 
And thank you for pointing out the horrid mispelling of canisters in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine, (VOl.35, No. 2; Feb 1994). My god, an EXTRA n !!!!!!! And missing information reference numbers 19, 20, 30, 33, and 34. Good lord, no telling what got past the peer review committee that reviewed that paper. Were you, Steven Dapra, to form a posse, I quite sure the rest of us radsafers would fall in line behind you, march on both Idaho State University and the Journal of Nuclear Medicine, then demand these exercrable and heinous transgressions be dealt with pitiless punishment.
 
However, I feel that we should stress that despite, as you say, the many shortcomings of the article, our posse should point out that you found the article informative. Perhaps this small scrap of approval coming from from you might well prevent those involved in the aforementioned abominations from committing self-immolation, or worse, leading them to going on a murderous rampage at the English department at Idaho State University. I suppose they might well blame the Journalism dept and raze to the ground as well.
 
And I stand corrected on the EPA motivation on educating the public on radon. I had no idea that the EPA is on some sort of evil mission to increase their reach and power. I am simply aghast at this news, yet also somewhat disapointed that you didn't provide a link or footnote so that the rest of us could complete our education. Are they buying up all the black helicopters? Will wearing tinfoil hats prevent their reading our thoughts? Will wrapping tinfoil around my computer prevent them reading this email?
 
All I can say is that my eyes tear up with the knowledge that Steven Dapra is out there on the perimeter while the rest of us repose, defending the internet from extra n's, missing information in footnotes, clumsy sentence structures, clumsy phraseology, lack of proof reading, and government agencies running amok.