[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: radiation is radiation? lochbaum
With all due respect Ruth - and I do highly respect your opinions and
input.
I am beginning to see some of Norm's confusion - even though I most
certainly do not agree with him.
The answers are dancing all around his questions.
I think maybe he understands that C-14 whether natural or manmade is
indistiguishable.
I believe the point is that in the absence on any manmade isotopes we
would have no I-131 or Sr-90 - and thus it is the human efforts that
have put those there. AND that is why the TF project is using Sr-90 as
a marker or indicator and NOT - as some have suggested - that they are
alledging that the amount of Sr-90 found is somehow harmful in and of
itself.
I believe that their point is EXACTLY that manmade is indistinguishable
from natural for identical isotopes - the only difference being in the
mix. Thus if a marker typical of a reactor emmission and NOT naturally
occurring is present - then it is reasonable to presume that it is
accompanied by other manmade isotopes not so easily distinguished - but
none the less ADDED.
What we need to tell Norm is - how much isotope X is natural and how
much is manmade (I don't know those number - but many here do).
And YES - Iodine does accumulate in the thyroid - but the thyroid is
relatively radio resistant and the amount that is released by reactors
is such that positive effects have not been demonstrated. And the
amount necessary to cause damage would be so high it would be easily
detectable.
Norm in turn needs to understand the difference between demonstrable
FACT and opinion. He treats all as opinions without regards for
backing. This may work in a court of law where what passes for "proof"
is merely persuasion. BUT does NOT pass for proof in the scientific
arena. He needs to understand that when we say FACT we mean it is
repeatably demonstrable by experiment - NOT the findings of a lone
researcher that no one else has been able to confirm.
Norm also needs to understand statistics a bit better. I think he has a
basic grasp - but NOT a thorough understanding.
This business is a LOT of numbers and that is the key to understanding
MUCH of this. There is a large "grey area" - which is NOT to say there
is a large UNKNOWN area - but just a large area where there is not a
certainty of effect or no effect - but a probability of an effect. This
is the near background area. This is the whole discussion the
threshold.
BUT - to answer the direct questions of Norm and others we need direct
answers in simple language. Once we have answered the direct question -
THEN we may provide additional clarification.
Simlarly the question about the 1/2 kilo of PU killing everyone. The
answer about the amount to cause a problem and the number that would
kill was good - but still the basic question was not addressed.
What was NOT said was that the statement originated from a THEORY that
even ONE event MAY cause a cancer that MAY kill. The very operative
word being MAY. The other point was touched on - but not simply - and
that is distribution - ie. even IF the theory were true THEN how would
you distribute JUST ENOUGH to each and every person to cause JUST that
one event - Less not being enough and more not being any better but
"depriving" someone else of their minumum amount.
THEN we could point out that with the EXACT distribution the theory
STILL says MAY/COULD and that even that theory says that not everyone so
dosed would in fact die - but COULD die.
We all understand these things at such a basic level we sometimes forget
to restate the obvious and then build from there.
IMHO
ruth_weiner wrote:
>
> No I'm going to answer "on-list." First, I believe you mean "radionuclides"
> not "radionucleotides" -- the latter refers to radioactively labeled nucleic
> acids. Let me use an example: C-14 (a beta emitter) is present naturally.
> C-14 can also be produced "artificially" by bombarding N-14 with neutrons.
> The naturally occurring C-14 is in every way identical to, and
> indistinguishable from, the artificially produced C-14. Whether or not an
> isotope is present in nature or is artificially produced is completely
> beside the point. Different radionuclides emit different types of radiation
> at different energies, depending on their nuclear structure. Many
> radionuclides are not present in nature, but their artificiality has
> essentially nothing to do with their properties.
>
> Let me try a non-radioactive analogy: I take a medication, chemical name
> sodium alendronate, to prevent osteoporosis. This substance is not a
> natural extract, but must be synthesized in the laboratory. Some women take
> estrogen compounds for the same purpose, and they work too. sometimes these
> estrogens are a natural extract, and sometimes they are synthesized.
> Whether the substance is present naturally or is synthetic is irrelevant to
> its function.
>
> I might add that the irrelevance of the natural or artificial origin of a
> radionuclide was glaringly obvious to me, and I have been essentially caught
> off-guard by the emphasis that some people put on the distinction.
>
> Ruth Weiner
> ruth_weiner@msn.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Monday, May 08, 2000 7:14 PM
> Subject: Re: radiation is radiation? lochbaum
>
> >Vince, ( and everyone else)
> >
> >I'm not being thick on purpose. I seem to hear 2 messages.
> >
> >(
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html