HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Low-dose study finds no e... » Reply #52
In the discussion thread: Low-dose study finds no effects [View all]

Response to RobertEarl (Reply #51)

Mon May 21, 2012, 10:52 AM

52. Have you read it? Are you thus admitting your error?

Obviously not or you wouldn't have posted it.

In comparing my claim of effectively zero impact from TMI vs. your links to claims of thousands... this study comes 99% of the way over to my side. Yes, they believe they identified a tiny impact for the TMI release (and even that disagreement was effectively rebutted), but even accepting their claim, their margin of error takes the effect down to almost statistical insignificance.

If you want to shift the argument down to whether there were zero additional cancers or instead a handful... I don't see that's there's much left to argue. It certainly represents a change from your prior claims.

The problem lies in that environmental nuclear doses are not administered through doctors, etc.,

So? Did you think that physicians have access to magical radiation that works differently?

variable and of different types. Radiation in the air is natural. Nuclear is not natural

Are you sure that you aren't a pro nuclear poster just trying to make the other side look bad? A number of us joke that some anti-nukes know so little about health physics that they think that there's something different between an alpha particle emitted from a "natural" source and a "man-made" source. But you rarely get one willing to make the error so clearly as you have here.

Let me respond equally clearly. You don't know what you're talking about. "Natural" radiation is in no way different from nuclear radiation.

not only is it just skin exposure but it is ingested and inhaled. Making such doses far more deadly at nearly any amount.

The hits just keep on coming, don't they?

Again, you're dead wrong. The thousands of becquerels emitted from your body (including the Carbon 14 that plays such an important role in your DNA) is internal radiation. The radon that in your part of the country makes up a big portion of your background dose, is inhaled constantly. The radionuclides in your food and water are obviously ingested. X-rays from cosmic background radiation or medical procedures are not "ingested/inhaled", but it hardly matters since your skin is no protection (that's why x-rays work of course).

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
FBaggins May 2012 OP
Richard D May 2012 #1
FBaggins May 2012 #3
FogerRox May 2012 #9
TalkingDog May 2012 #2
Richard D May 2012 #4
TalkingDog May 2012 #5
NickB79 May 2012 #7
PamW May 2012 #6
FogerRox May 2012 #10
FBaggins May 2012 #11
PamW May 2012 #29
FogerRox May 2012 #38
jpak May 2012 #8
FBaggins May 2012 #12
NickB79 May 2012 #13
bananas May 2012 #14
NickB79 May 2012 #15
kristopher May 2012 #16
PamW May 2012 #43
flamingdem May 2012 #27
RobertEarl May 2012 #17
kristopher May 2012 #19
PamW May 2012 #30
Downwinder May 2012 #18
RobertEarl May 2012 #20
FBaggins May 2012 #21
RobertEarl May 2012 #22
FBaggins May 2012 #23
RobertEarl May 2012 #24
FBaggins May 2012 #25
RobertEarl May 2012 #26
PamW May 2012 #28
RobertEarl May 2012 #31
PamW May 2012 #32
RobertEarl May 2012 #33
FogerRox May 2012 #39
RobertEarl May 2012 #41
PamW May 2012 #61
RobertEarl May 2012 #62
FBaggins May 2012 #34
RobertEarl May 2012 #35
FBaggins May 2012 #36
RobertEarl May 2012 #37
FogerRox May 2012 #40
PamW May 2012 #44
Downwinder May 2012 #45
PamW May 2012 #46
Downwinder May 2012 #47
PamW May 2012 #48
Downwinder May 2012 #49
FBaggins May 2012 #50
RobertEarl May 2012 #51
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Have you read it? Are you thus admitting your error?
FBaggins May 2012 #52
RobertEarl May 2012 #53
FBaggins May 2012 #54
RobertEarl May 2012 #55
FogerRox May 2012 #57
PamW May 2012 #59
FogerRox May 2012 #60
happyslug May 2012 #58
joshcryer May 2012 #42
FogerRox May 2012 #56
Please login to view edit histories.