Norm, Norm, Norm
As you should know by now is that the exposure needs be correlated to the risk. Epidemiological studes, not ancedotal ("my kid has cancer so it is the fault") nor clustering ("no cause for a one time spike in brain cancers found in Tom's River, NJ"), have ever demonstrated any relationship between Sr-90 and cancers. You lost on this whole issue, so why don't you stick to things you have a chance of arguing about, like the cutting of trees and solar power.
Norman Cohen <ncohen12@comcast.net> wrote:
HI all,
While the EPA oes not specify radiation in this article, doesn't their
current position, that children are more at risk, lend support to the
Tooth Fairy Project's hypothesis about the effects of low level
radiation on the fetus and infants?
. . .