[ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Wed Jun 22 22:08:00 CDT 2011

At 02:45 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Perle, Sandy
>Sent: Wed 22/06/2011 20:34
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing  List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>One must also consider the issues that he referenced since there is 
>more than just the effects from the reactors. However, if one can 
>exclude all of those factors, which I doubt, and there is a 30% or 
>higher incidence based on historical statistics, then I would have 
>no problem agreeing with you. The issue in the head is reliable 
>data, epidemiology and a sound foundation. This is often not reality 
>when looking at these cohorts. As I stated earlier, I am not simply 
>going with the notion that 100% nuclear is always the right way when 
>considering cause/effect, but rather evaluate the data and then make 
>the best decision available. One must consider all of the facts. 
>Let's see where the data takes us, as long as it takes to make sure 
>that the data is accurate and the appropriate data is being used in 
>the analysis, without playing statistical games.


>Good. I agree. And we wont have to wait that long.

June 22

         How long is "that long"?  Cancer has a latency period of at 
least 20 y.

Steven Dapra

More information about the RadSafe mailing list