No subject

micron AMAD radioactive particles, and physical chemical reactions at
the molecular level are moot until I'm convinced that the current
understanding and assessment of the risk is incorrect. In other words, I
don't care about your theories regarding what might be happening to
cause low-level ionizing radiation to be so "risky" until you show me
that it is "risky". You have not. I'm willing to listen, but I want to
see data from reputable sources and without the hyperbole. And, as a
previous brilliant post noted, actual measurements trump calculations.

=20

The data from regions of high natural background radiation seem to
suggest a protective effect from low-level ionizing radiation. This data
involves very large populations over significant time-frames. Please
take a moment to explain why this seems to be occurring, and contrast
this to your claims. And please remember that these high background
regions involve both internal (uranium, thorium, and daughters) and
external radiation exposure.

=20

I've asked you previously to explain HOW you came to arrive at your
"second event theory". I'm sure others will be interested as well.
Please take a few moments to explain this to us.

=20

BTW, I have published few papers. I'm pretty much an idiot, but I'm
impressionable. Give it a try.

=20

Regards,

=20

=20

=20

Harry Anagnostopoulos, CHP

Nevada

=20

"In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but
planning is indispensable."

-             President Dwight D. Eisenhower

=20

=20

=20