[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Know_Nukes] Low Radiation Doses May Pose Hi...
>From: magnu96196@aol.com
>In a message dated 12/15/01 6:40:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>jim_hoerner@hotmail.com writes:
> > I would not be at all surprised if the press misquoted the study. Can
>you
> > show that to me?
I guess not. Nothing new there.
>Jim, Jim, Jim,
> You're the one that misquoted, misread, assumed, were overly expert,
>and went off half cocked. The article did not say "20 centigray alpha"
>as you claim here
Magnu, Magnu, Magnu,
Being wrong is fine. If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it, and move on.
You, on the otherhand, will never do that, and you apparently cannot read.
Here is an exact quote of what you are referring to [my emphasis]:
"the RESEARCHERS BEAMED A SINGLE ALPHA particle through
the nuclei of randomly selected cells growing in petri
dishes. THE RADIATION WAS EQUAIVALENT TO A DOSE BELOW 20
CENTIGRAYS, a unit used in radiation measurement. Mine
workers and nuclear workers are occasionally exposed to
radiation doses similar to those used in the study,"
> Which says nothing about alpha radiation, but only rad dose
>"equilavalent."
Although you may have had some experience in radiation safety, you
apparently do not know the difference between dose and dose equivalent.
Gray is not a unit of does equivalent. Sieverts and rem are. You should
know this.
Please tell us, is 20 centigray alpha 400 rem or not? It's yes, or no.
> So, your all wet with this 400 rem BS, and screwing up what the
>authors
>were conveying and even what the reporter was saying.
So you say, so it must be true.
> Nothing like trying to confuse everyone.
Magnu, I may be wrong on this one, and I don't mind. At least I backed up
my claims and provided references*. You have failed to back up anything
you've ever said. This post of yours that I am replying to for some futile
reason is just another example.
> Now, are you sorry for attempting to confuse everyone and debunk some
>very valid research?
Heck no, sir. The article says 20 centigray alphas. That's 400 rem. They
should have written it better if they wanted to be credible.
Even if they meant gamma dose equivalent, as you blindly and emptily claim,
that's still 20 rem, an instantaneous factor of 100 greater than the average
nuclear power plant worker gets in a year. How about them apples?!
Magnu, Magnu, Magnu, just who's dosimeter is off scale? You ARE the weakest
link! Goodbye.
Regards,
Jim
* here were my references
1. http://bookmarkphysics.iop.org/fullbooks/075030670x/mouldch01.pdf
2. http://bookmarkphysics.iop.org/fullbooks/075030670x/mouldch04.pdf
3. http://www.yale.edu/oehs/prgnancy.htm
4. http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q361.html
5. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html
for my original post which can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/doewatch/message/13289
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.