Re: Re[2]- Caveman NORM dos

[David Walland <David.Walland@bristol.ac.uk>]

Can I agree heartily with this viewpoint.  It takes me a long time to wade through my E-mail every morning.  If it 
continues to be full of  ..........,  I will have to (as a responsible employee) unsubscribe from radsafe.  It takes time to 
tease out the few grains of wheat from the vast amounts of chaff.
Can I also make a plea for everyone to actually read what the other person writes.  I sent a reply pointing out that 
someone was making a false point by mixing stochastic and non-stochastic effects.  I got a reply suggesting that if _I_ 
didn't know the difference I shouldn't say so on radsafe!!!!!  I do - the guy with his 100 tablets didn't!  This sort of 
thing is rather galling!  Things like this happen repeatedly, not just to me.
Some things on radsafe are very useful and I would be loath to unsubscribe and lose this source of  information.  How 
about tightening things up a bit?

David Walland
University of Bristol (UK)


On Tue, 24 Oct 95 12:21:11 -0500 Chris Davey wrote:

> From: Chris Davey <cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca>
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 12:21:11 -0500
> Subject: Re: Re[2]- Caveman NORM dos
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> 
> Creation...   .... Evolution
> 
> Two points:
> 
> 1	Let's not be insulting, it degrades the professionalism
> 
> 2	Millions or billions of years, or just 6,000 - let's use the 
> theory of long, long timescales for discussion, and see where it leads.  
> Any other approach upsets so many preconceived notions that 
> interpretation of radiation levels and hazards would be impossible, IMO.
> 
> Chris Davey, RSO  Cross Cancer Institute
> 
>