[Date Prev][Date Next]
[cdn-nucl-l] Re: Radiation Hormesis
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Radiation Hormesis
- From: Stephen Whiteside <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:12:00 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <200107301600.MAA05695@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA>
- User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
In a galaxy far far away Mr. Cutter wrote:
> Message: 2
> From: "Jerry Cuttler" <email@example.com>
> To: "cdn-nucl-l" <firstname.lastname@example.org.McMaster.CA>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:55:36 -0400
> Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Fw: Interesting commentary on radiation hormesis....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Cramer" <email@example.com>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list ans-pie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 2:29 AM
> Subject: Interesting commentary on radiation hormesis....
>> Interesting commentary on radiation hormesis....
I visited the sites about radiation hormesis. I always end up
with more questions after I search for answers.
1. Does that mean repeated over doses to the Sun that bring on 1st and 2nd
degree burns are safe?
2. Does that mean one atom of plutonium is safe and a significant amount
3. Does the type of radiation from the Sun that bombards us have the same
isotopes as that are given off in the air and water from the majority of
American styled nuclear power plants, like I 131?
4. If low radiation is safe, then why would leukemia rates around nuclear
power plants be statistically higher than the norm?
5. If repeated low doses are safe, then why are several nuclear processing
facilities like Hanover, Rocky Flats, and Paducah, major contaminants to
human and environmental health?
6. If low doses of radiation are safe, then what does an 'acceptable level
of risk' mean?
I just have more questions!