Re: radiation is radiation?

[Ted de Castro <tdc@xrayted.com>]

Ya know - I think you are all missing the point once again!

The points and counter points are crossing - not connecting!

Not to say that ANYTHING you have said is wrong - you are just not
answering the question or addressing the point the way Norm is
asking/seeing it.  His misunderstandings are at the most fundamental
levels - things we all understand as basic fact - he has been led to
believe is otherwise.  Arguments we find perfectly clear he sees as
totally non responsive.

Norm is coming from a perspective that the short 1/2 life products are
the demons - especially I-131 since it insidiously hides away in the
thyroid and he has been given to believe that the thyroid is
particularly radio sensitve and that I-131 and most other short 1/2
lived isotopes are not found in nature.

Now - I AM ASSUMMING  that they are reasoning that OF COURSE the short
1/2 lived stuff will not be found in bio assays or in surveys because it
all decayed away - and we all KNOW that nukes relase these things only
when nobody is looking.

So - SR-90 - which they also believe is not naturally occuring - is
their marker.  So - if it was there then so were all those demons - they
just did their damage and left.

They also reason that natural background if ONLY from long 1/2 lived
stuff and thus is NOT the stuff that concentrates in particularly
sensitive areas and so cannot be compared.

The synergy - is just a red herring - surely Radiation MUST be the
culprit and if there is NOT enough for it to have an effect by itself -
it MUST be in cahoots with something that would otherwise have no reason
to hurt anyone and by virtue of the added rad becomes evil.

But no matter what - the problem MUST be found to be rad.

So - there will be no convincing or changing of minds - BUT at least our
answers should address his understanding and unless we lay a basis as to
WHY a REM is a REM and address the organ specific issues - we can talk
about background til the cows come home - and it will mean absolutely
nothing to him/them. 

Jim Muckerheide wrote:
> 
> Cancer is lower.  But why compare to the US average?  Compare to the low dose
> regions! (e.g., San Francisco area, coastal areas of the southeast, etc.
> Recall  John Jagger's HPJ paper showing much higher cancer in 3 Gulf Coast
> states vs 3 Rocky Mountain states.  Also the Kerala India area comparing the
> high-dose region vs. the adjacent low-dose areas (the radioactivity is
> delivered down the river from the mountains).
> 
> Regards, Jim
> muckerheide@mediaone.net
> ========================
> 
> "Reynolds, Harold" wrote:
> >
> > If cancer rates in the Denver area were to be higher than lower elevations,
> > you could bet the Tooth Fairy types would blame it on Rocky Flats and not on
> > background.
> >
> > Harry Reynolds
> > Harold.Reynolds@RFETS.gov
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kent, Michael  D [SMTP:Michael.D.Kent@nspco.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 5:42 AM
> > > To:   Multiple recipients of list
> > > Subject:      RE: radiation is radiation?
> > >
> > >
> > > Norm,
> > >
> > > Just a quick observation for you; maybe you can pass this on to your
> > > colleagues at the TF project.
> > >
> > > As has been pointed out numerous times, cancer rates in Denver, Co are not
> > > higher than the national average.  This is true, even though they live in
> > > an
> > > area where background radiation is twice as high, AND they have Rocky
> > > Flats
> > > next door (lot's and lot's of DEADLY Plutonium, and other nasty stuff).
> > >
> > > Why not go and do a study in Denver?   Could it be that this would
> > > possibly
> > > skew the results of their survey and show something they did not want (
> > > i.e.
> > > to hard to twist the data to fit the mold you need).
> > >
> > > Michael D. Kent RRPT
> > > ************************************************************************
> > > 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
> ************************************************************************
> 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