Background radiation

[Holloway3@aol.com]

Norm,

The claim that background radiation is less harmful than man-made radiation 
is not generally accepted by the scientific community.  If true, it would be 
an important fact but there is simply no evidence for it and it flies in the 
face of common sense.  As others have noted, natural radioactivity consists 
of nuclides with both long and short half-lives.  The uranium decay chain has 
several members with half lives of a few minutes or less.  These are ingested 
into the lungs to some extent and are a part of the well known radon problem 
and controversy.  So the tooth fairy project is based on at least two dubious 
propositions, one that the Sr-90 in teeth is from power reactors and secondly 
that man-made radioactivity is much more harmful than natural radioactivity.  
Either of these propositions, if wrong, will sink the project.  I wish Las 
Vegas would take wagers on the success of this project.  Also, Ra-226, a 
natural radionuclide, is a bone seeker and has very definite harmful effects 
that are well known.  So not all natural radionuclides are dispersed through 
soft tissue.  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html