[ RadSafe ] High Level Waste to WIPP
Cmtimmpe at aol.com
Cmtimmpe at aol.com
Tue May 15 10:59:49 CDT 2012
The article presented in this URL:
_http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/aiken/2012-05-10/srs-nuke-waste-if-not-yu
cca-mountain-what-about-new-mexico?v=1336691258_
(http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/aiken/2012-05-10/srs-nuke-waste-if-not-yucca-mountain-what-about-new
-mexico?v=1336691258)
is interesting more because of the comments than the content. The
commenter's all harp on the fact that putting HLW in WIPP is illegal. Somehow,
they seem to forget that laws are changed all the time to respond to various
changes in our worlds. I'd like to see more of the nuclear community
respond to such negativism.
Christopher M. Timm, PE
Vice President/Senior Project Manager
PECOS Management Services, Inc.
505-323-8355 - phone
505-323-2028 - fax
505-238-8174 - mobile
In a message dated 5/12/2012 11:01:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu writes:
Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."
Important!
To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the
following guideline when replying to a message or digest:
1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the
germane sentences to which you're responding.
Thanks!_______________________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. Re: It happened again (Stewart Farber)
2. Re: What does it mean to say that something causes 16% of
cancers? (Clayton J Bradt)
3. Re: What does it mean to say that something causes 16%of
cancers? (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
4. Re: What does it mean to say that something causes 16%of
cancers? (Mohan Doss)
5. Re: What does it mean to say that something causes 16% of Ca?
(Chris Alston)
6. Dental X-rays and Brain Tumors - Oh My! (Cary Renquist)
7. Re: What does it mean to say that something causes 16%of
cancers? (JPreisig at aol.com)
8. Re: What does it mean to say that something causes 16%of
cancers? (Maury)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:45:25 -0400
From: Stewart Farber <SAFarber at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] It happened again
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <002701cd2f9d$d9197e70$8b4c7b50$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi all,
Regarding the news article Joel posted about the Firefighter in Milford, CT
setting off a State Trooper's rad monitor as the two cars were in
proximity,
the "small" amount of radioactivity [ 201Tl most likely vs Tc-99m]
mentioned in the article is discussed in some detail in the excellent full
paper about cardiac testing at the following reference:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/16/1668.full
>From the above for 201-Tl:
"Whole-body radiation exposure after a typical dose (2 to 4 mCi) is
approximately 0.68 rad, and the kidneys are the organ exposed to the most
radiation. The relatively long half-life (T1/2=73 hours) and low energy of
201Tl are important considerations during imaging. The long T1/2
contributes
to its significant inpatient residence time and requires lower doses to
minimize risk of radiation exposure."
This kind of event happens regularly. Many years ago, a visitor on a tour
of
the White House [when the public was taken on tours] set off rad monitors
there because he had had a nuclear stress test.
The article at the link Joel supplied below also states:
"In the test, a small amount of a radioactive material is injected into the
veins and used to help track blood flow to the heart.
Though the amount of radioactive material used in the test is relatively
low
-- equal to a few X-rays or a diagnostic CT scan -- it was enough to set
off
a radioactivity detector in the state police car. "
As we know a "small amount" of radioactivity or dose is relative. Had a
release [ aka "spewing" as invariably used by the press in writing about
any
release] from a nuclear plant like Millstone nuclear station in CT [ which
supplies power to over 1 million people in CT] resulted in a fraction of
the
exposure and dose rate cited, even to one person, many professional
anti-nuclear scaremongers would be calling for shutting down every nuclear
plant in the region and be wearing out the word "Fukushima". "Ain't it
awful" :-)
Stewart Farber
farber at farber.info
=======================
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Joel C.
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:10 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] It happened again
"Mike Apatow, of Milford, poses at Stratford Fire Station, Company 2, in
Stratford, Conn. May 10th, 2012, where he works as firefighter. Apatow, who
had a radioactive stress test Wednesday, was pulled over later in the day,
in Newtown, by a state police trooper after a radioactivity detector in the
trooper's car was set off when Apatow passed. The detectors are used to
help
identify potential terror threats. Apatow was not on duty at the time.
Photo: Ned Gerard
/ Connecticut Post
Read more:
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Radioactive-man-Milford-resident-pulled-o
ver-by-3549631.php#ixzz1uZtp8W47
Joel Cehn
joelc at alum.wpi.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:10:28 -0400
From: Clayton J Bradt <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something
causes 16% of cancers?
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: Cary.renquist at ezag.com
Message-ID:
<OF90AE05CF.9FA762FD-ON852579FB.0063166F-852579FB.0063CECD at notes.health.stat
e.ny.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cary Renquist wrote:
"Cancer is more like poverty (caused by a number of events
throughout one's life, some inherited and some not) rather than
malaria
(caused by a very specific infection delivered via mosquito)."
Except that sometimes cancer is like malaria:
Certain strains of human papilloma virus cause cervical cancer. Specific
virus genes have been identified which are found to be spliced into the
tumor cells DNA causing them to proliferate while evading immune defense
mechanisms.
Other cancers have also been found to be caused by viruses.
Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509
518-474-1993
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit
of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration." -- A. Lincoln
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 11:28:56 -0700
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something
causes 16%of cancers?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D07505E59 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
More and more I am coming to think "cancer" is like "fever", in that it
describes a symptom, rather than a disease. I think we are moving past
being limited to treating the symptom to understanding the various
things that can cause it.
A great irony is that the population has been taught to fear radiation
as the cause of cancer, when it is actually an absolutely necessary to
in understanding and treating cancers.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J
Bradt
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:10 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: Cary.renquist at ezag.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something causes
16%of cancers?
Cary Renquist wrote:
"Cancer is more like poverty (caused by a number of events
throughout one's life, some inherited and some not) rather than
malaria
(caused by a very specific infection delivered via mosquito)."
Except that sometimes cancer is like malaria:
Certain strains of human papilloma virus cause cervical cancer.
Specific
virus genes have been identified which are found to be spliced into the
tumor cells DNA causing them to proliferate while evading immune defense
mechanisms.
Other cancers have also been found to be caused by viruses.
Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509
518-474-1993
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit
of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration." -- A. Lincoln
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:20:56 -0400
From: Mohan Doss <mohan.doss at fccc.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something
causes 16%of cancers?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4FAD74A8.3050601 at fccc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I agree with you that cancers are symptoms of an underlying condition.
A few points to note:
1. About 45% of the population is likely to be diagnosed with cancer in
their lifetime (ACS estimate, e.g.). You may think the remaining 55% of
the population do not have cancer. However, when autopsies are
performed, you are likely to find cancer cells in almost all of them (if
they are well into their old age).
2. When the immune system is suppressed, e.g. in AIDS patients or organ
transplant patients, the cancer risk goes up by a factor of about 2.4.
Thus, the 55% of population that you thought do not have cancer will
have cancer, if we suppress their immune system. We can probably
extrapolate this backwards and say that if you improved the immune
system, you would decrease the cancer, and maybe eliminate the cancer
altogether. One method of boosting the immune system is regular
moderate vigorous exercise. This is known to reduce cancer incidence
and mortality for many types of cancers. Another method of boosting the
immune system is through low dose radiation. Low dose radiation is
known to reduce cancers in controlled studies in animal models. For
humans, though reduction in cancers has been observed from low dose
radiation in many retrospective studies, the potential confounding
factors make it difficult to convince all scientists (or the general
public) who are scared of the low dose radiation. We need controlled
clinical trials to determine conclusively the effectiveness of low dose
radiation in preventing cancers.
Thus the underlying condition that causes (most) clinical cancers is
deficiency in the immune system (in my opinion, based on the above
points). So long as we don't recognize this factor, and deal with it,
we are not likely to succeed in conquering cancer. Thus our current
radiation safety system based on the LNT model (which completely ignores
the effect of low dose radiation on the immune system) is a major
failure of our current scientific society. If what I have said here is
shown to be true in the future, people are going to refer to our present
days as the Dark Ages with regard to radiation, and wonder how we did
not recognize the importance of the immune system in preventing cancer
for so long (~40 years).
With best regards,
Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Medical Physicist, Diagnostic Imaging,
Associate Professor,
Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
Fax: 215 728-4755
E-mail: Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
On 5/11/2012 2:28 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
> More and more I am coming to think "cancer" is like "fever", in that it
> describes a symptom, rather than a disease. I think we are moving past
> being limited to treating the symptom to understanding the various
> things that can cause it.
>
> A great irony is that the population has been taught to fear radiation
> as the cause of cancer, when it is actually an absolutely necessary to
> in understanding and treating cancers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J
> Bradt
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:10 AM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Cc: Cary.renquist at ezag.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something causes
> 16%of cancers?
>
>
> Cary Renquist wrote:
>
> "Cancer is more like poverty (caused by a number of events
> throughout one's life, some inherited and some not) rather than
> malaria
> (caused by a very specific infection delivered via mosquito)."
>
> Except that sometimes cancer is like malaria:
>
> Certain strains of human papilloma virus cause cervical cancer.
> Specific
> virus genes have been identified which are found to be spliced into the
> tumor cells DNA causing them to proliferate while evading immune defense
> mechanisms.
>
> Other cancers have also been found to be caused by viruses.
>
> Clayton J. Bradt
> Principal Radiophysicist
> NYS Dept. of Health
> Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
> Empire State Plaza
> Albany, NY 12201-0509
>
> 518-474-1993
>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private,
confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of
the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the
intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email
including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended
recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable state
and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such
information.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 19:01:40 -0400
From: Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something
causes 16% of Ca?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAADHP=P6poEO6n7kErrFDzppxAPm1LrUu5YYO6wfhOe2EgoJ3Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Mike
Yes. It is even possible that low doses, at relatively low dose rates,
stimulate anti-carcinogenic mechanisms in the body.
Cheers
cja
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brennan, Mike (DOH) <Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov>
Date: Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something causes
16%of cancers?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
<
radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
More and more I am coming to think "cancer" is like "fever", in that it
describes a symptom, rather than a disease. I think we are moving past
being limited to treating the symptom to understanding the various
things that can cause it.
A great irony is that the population has been taught to fear radiation
as the cause of cancer, when it is actually an absolutely necessary to
in understanding and treating cancers.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J
Bradt
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:10 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: Cary.renquist at ezag.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something causes
16%of cancers?
Cary Renquist wrote:
"Cancer is more like poverty (caused by a number of events
throughout one's life, some inherited and some not) rather than
malaria
(caused by a very specific infection delivered via mosquito)."
Except that sometimes cancer is like malaria:
Certain strains of human papilloma virus cause cervical cancer.
Specific
virus genes have been identified which are found to be spliced into the
tumor cells DNA causing them to proliferate while evading immune defense
mechanisms.
Other cancers have also been found to be caused by viruses.
Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509
518-474-1993
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit
of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration." -- A. Lincoln
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:55:36 -0700
From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dental X-rays and Brain Tumors - Oh My!
To: <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<C3973DA2E426594A8EC6DC90DB0540A008ECB20A at ipl-mail.ipl.isotopeproducts.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"
If only articles like this became fodder for the evening news...
Science-Based Medicine ? Dental X-rays and Brain Tumors - Oh My!
http://j.mp/IOR1qn
Fear sells, and the media loves it. If it's scary, no matter how tenuous
the link or inconclusive the study, you are going to see it on the news. How
many times over the years have you heard that your cell phone might give
you brain cancer, even though it never turns out to be true? Once such a
claim is made, however, it becomes lodged into the public's psyche and is
accepted as true, even after refutations and retractions are published (see
Wakefield, Andrew).
And so it is with x-rays. The latest scare du jour, a recent study out of
Yale that claims to show a correlation between dental x-rays and
intracranial meningioma - the most common brain tumor and usually benign - has been
enjoying widespread attention in newspapers and on the evening news. We
don't know if it will be on Dr. Oz, because we can't bring ourselves to watch
that show, but we feel the chances are good. Other alt-medders will no doubt
have collective woogasms over the story and will further incite fear and
mistrust into the doctor-patient relationship.
our Top Three Reasons Not To Panic:
1. The data is primarily anecdotal.
2. The results defy dose response expectations
3. Lost in the background.
We hope this will help you understand why we roll our eyes when a
physician reporter on NBC tells the audience that they should be really be refusing
x-rays at the dentist. This is dangerous advice coming from someone
outside of their field of expertise.
Medical radiation aside, an important question remains: when we all get
several hundred ?Sv of background ionizing radiation through our bodies and
brains per year - every year- it seems a bit odd that an extra 10 ?Sv, even
once in your life, would significantly raise your risk of anything to the
degree that the Yale study claims.
Cary
--
Cary.renquist at ezag.com
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 00:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: JPreisig at aol.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something
causes 16%of cancers?
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <4f1b8.2e8aac5e.3cdf3f7d at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hello,
Sound like if you get to be old enough, Cancer will be in your body
somewhat.
A heart attack may take a person's life first.
Cancer sometimes has long latency times, right????
Some of this is food throughput also??? --- if food preservatives,
irritants, carcinogens, show up in
the body in quantity, perhaps due to bodily trapping mechanisms (bad
circulation, artery/vein breaks,etc.)
then these chemicals etc. can build up and possibly start some cancer
startup process.
Eating too much can also cause buildup of carcinogens, etc. Exercise
probably helps the body clear
itself of unneeded chemicals, carcinogens etc.
USGS had a news item also a while back of some natural/environmental
virus or micro-organism
causing brain cancers...
Thanks for posting these email guys...
Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig
PS Maury and Dog, you need to take it easy only these larger full Moon
events --- the next one in 6
months could be our last, according to the Mayans???? The email I
posted on radsafe a while
ago about some alien spaceship approaching Earth was apparently
based on some Alien
Encounter show, which was some fact and some high drama. Funny,
there were SETI people
in the program and other real physicists.???? One way to get
funding, I guess.
In a message dated 5/11/2012 4:21:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mohan.doss at fccc.edu writes:
I agree with you that cancers are symptoms of an underlying condition.
A few points to note:
1. About 45% of the population is likely to be diagnosed with cancer in
their lifetime (ACS estimate, e.g.). You may think the remaining 55% of
the population do not have cancer. However, when autopsies are
performed, you are likely to find cancer cells in almost all of them (if
they are well into their old age).
2. When the immune system is suppressed, e.g. in AIDS patients or organ
transplant patients, the cancer risk goes up by a factor of about 2.4.
Thus, the 55% of population that you thought do not have cancer will
have cancer, if we suppress their immune system. We can probably
extrapolate this backwards and say that if you improved the immune
system, you would decrease the cancer, and maybe eliminate the cancer
altogether. One method of boosting the immune system is regular
moderate vigorous exercise. This is known to reduce cancer incidence
and mortality for many types of cancers. Another method of boosting the
immune system is through low dose radiation. Low dose radiation is
known to reduce cancers in controlled studies in animal models. For
humans, though reduction in cancers has been observed from low dose
radiation in many retrospective studies, the potential confounding
factors make it difficult to convince all scientists (or the general
public) who are scared of the low dose radiation. We need controlled
clinical trials to determine conclusively the effectiveness of low dose
radiation in preventing cancers.
Thus the underlying condition that causes (most) clinical cancers is
deficiency in the immune system (in my opinion, based on the above
points). So long as we don't recognize this factor, and deal with it,
we are not likely to succeed in conquering cancer. Thus our current
radiation safety system based on the LNT model (which completely ignores
the effect of low dose radiation on the immune system) is a major
failure of our current scientific society. If what I have said here is
shown to be true in the future, people are going to refer to our present
days as the Dark Ages with regard to radiation, and wonder how we did
not recognize the importance of the immune system in preventing cancer
for so long (~40 years).
With best regards,
Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Medical Physicist, Diagnostic Imaging,
Associate Professor,
Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
Fax: 215 728-4755
E-mail: Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
On 5/11/2012 2:28 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
> More and more I am coming to think "cancer" is like "fever", in that it
> describes a symptom, rather than a disease. I think we are moving past
> being limited to treating the symptom to understanding the various
> things that can cause it.
>
> A great irony is that the population has been taught to fear radiation
> as the cause of cancer, when it is actually an absolutely necessary to
> in understanding and treating cancers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J
> Bradt
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:10 AM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Cc: Cary.renquist at ezag.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something causes
> 16%of cancers?
>
>
> Cary Renquist wrote:
>
> "Cancer is more like poverty (caused by a number of events
> throughout one's life, some inherited and some not) rather than
> malaria
> (caused by a very specific infection delivered via mosquito)."
>
> Except that sometimes cancer is like malaria:
>
> Certain strains of human papilloma virus cause cervical cancer.
> Specific
> virus genes have been identified which are found to be spliced into the
> tumor cells DNA causing them to proliferate while evading immune defense
> mechanisms.
>
> Other cancers have also been found to be caused by viruses.
>
> Clayton J. Bradt
> Principal Radiophysicist
> NYS Dept. of Health
> Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
> Empire State Plaza
> Albany, NY 12201-0509
>
> 518-474-1993
>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private,
confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use
of
the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the
intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify
the sender
immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email
including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended
recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all
applicable state
and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of
such
information.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 00:45:12 -0500
From: Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] What does it mean to say that something
causes 16%of cancers?
To: Joe Preisig <JPreisig at aol.com>
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <4FADF8E8.6080002 at peoplepc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Joe. are They suggesting that maybe it should read, "moondust to
moondust, moonashes to moonashes"? -- just doesn'tquite have the right
ring to it ... Anyway, isn't cancer considered to be a disease of aging
that has a known probability associated with age as well as with other
events?
Best,
Maury&Dog
============================================
On 5/11/2012 11:22 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sound like if you get to be old enough, Cancer will be in your
body somewhat. A heart attack may take a person's life first.
> Cancer sometimes has long latency times, right????
>
> Some of this is food throughput also??? --- if food preservatives,
irritants, carcinogens, show up in
> the body in quantity, perhaps due to bodily trapping mechanisms (bad
circulation, artery/vein breaks,etc.)
> then these chemicals etc. can build up and possibly start some cancer
startup process. Eating too much can also cause buildup of carcinogens, etc.
Exercise
> probably helps the body clear itself of unneeded chemicals, carcinogens
etc.
>
> USGS had a news item also a while back of some natural/environmental
virus or micro-organism
> causing brain cancers...
>
> Thanks for posting these email guys...
>
> Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig
>
> PS Maury and Dog, you need to take it easy only these larger full
Moon events --- the next one in 6 months could be our last, according to the
Mayans???? The email I posted on radsafe a while ago about some alien
spaceship approaching Earth was apparently based on some Alien Encounter show,
which was some fact and some high drama. Funny, there were SETI people
in the program and other real physicists.???? One way to get funding, I
guess.
> ____________________________
> In a message dated 5/11/2012 4:21:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> mohan.doss at fccc.edu writes:
>
> I agree with you that cancers are symptoms of an underlying condition.
>
> A few points to note:
> 1. About 45% of the population is likely to be diagnosed with cancer
in
> their lifetime (ACS estimate, e.g.). You may think the remaining 55% of
> -----------snipped--------------
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 966, Issue 1
***************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list