Re: Study: Even Low-Dose Radiation is Dangerous

["GCARTWRIGHT.OPPD.COM" <GCARTWRIGHT@oppd.com>]

--Boundary-1448293-0-0

Perhaps the problem we have is the definition of "harm to the gene pool."  
Some people may simply call this "evolution."  In which case, this "harm to 
the gene pool" would not have prevented mankinds development on this planet, 
it would have caused it. 
 
Gary Cartwright 
gcartwright@oppd.com 



--Boundary-1448293-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 09 Oct 1997 10:15:48                    Sent: 09 Oct 1997 10:13:40
From:"Bob Flood " <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
To: Multiple,recipients,of,list,radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Study: Even Low-Dose Radiation is Dangerous
Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Errors-To:  melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Originator:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Sender:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Precedence:  bulk
X-Orcl-Application: X-Listserver-Version:  6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Orcl-Application: X-Comment:   Radiation Safety Distribution List 


At 10:11 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Most scientists now believe radiation below the
>internationally-accepted level of one millisievert per year can damage
>DNA in a new way that could harm the gene pool, wreck future
>generations and kill, the New Scientist said. 

Time for a sanity check on the data, folks. If doses below 100 mrem/y could
harm the gene pool and wreck the future of mankind, mankind never would
have developed on this planet. To the best of my knowledge, the only place
where one could expect environmental doses less than 100 mrem/y TEDE would
be in (not near, but IN) certain large bodies of water. (Actually, I'm not
sure that less than 100 per year is achievable even underwater.)


Bob Flood
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(415) 926-3793     bflood@slac.stanford.edu
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.



--Boundary-1448293-0-0--