[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are no...
As a newcomer to the list (great info, BTW), I was interested
in this thread.
:~)
A couple of comments (from a relative layman!):
1: Surely all efforts at correlating the data in the US will be
somewhat confused by the relative mobility of the population? i was
surprised to see no one looking beyond the US to some regions with
greater natural radiation.
2: For a (long-term) stable population, surely natural selection
will have created a population relatively immune to local levels in
natural radiation (e.g. in parts of Brazil, where the natural radiation
levels can be very high). But again, population movement would make this
pretty difficult to confirm in a short term study...
3: With the multiplicity of potentially adverse agents introduced in
a "developed" society, surely these will make any study of the
effects of radiation on cancer incidence very tenuous at best? how would
you isolate all these (I think this has been mentioned a number of
times).
4: Common sense would tend to argue against exposure to any quantity
of man-made agent - in whatever quantity - which has known adverse
effects. And, as we learn, we eliminate some of the so-called
"beneficial" machines introduced (remember those machines in
the shoe shops which allowed you to see how your feet fit? and I very
well remember having weekly "therapeutic radiations" sitting in
front of a powerful UV generating arc lamp (of German origin, I think)
when I was a kid, complete with black-out glasses to protect me from
blindness!. I used to be bemused by the stink of ozone it created! don't
see them for sale in the High Street any more......
Regards
Doug
Aitken Schlumberger
Drilling and Measurements QHSE
Advisor
Phone (Sugarland): 281
285-8009
Phone (Home office): 713
797-0919
Phone (Cell):
713
562-8585
Principal
E-mail: jdaitken@earthlink.net
Schlumberger:
daitken@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com