On 01/06/2013 15:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:18:04 +0200, Jo Stein
wrote:

On 01.06.2013 00:40, Tim Streater wrote:
What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

Those who want to know more about radiation should buy this book:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/index.php?faq
Why is radiation not dangerous at low doses?

Biology is very clever. Through evolution it has learnt to repair and
clean up after a low dose of radiation, using the same mechanisms
that protect against chemical damage to cells. This is known from
laboratory studies.

+1

Wade Allison makes a very credible, science based argument for
re-assessing the current safety levels for human radiation exposure.
These were set decades ago, when little was known about the effects of
exposure to low levels of radiation, and the Linear No-Threshold (LNT)
model was assumed, to be on the safe side. The evidence against the
LNT model is now substantial, with plenty of examples proving that the
human body is quite capable of tolerating and repairing any damage
done by radiation doses about a thousand times higher than the current
safety limits.

See also http://www.radiationandreason.com/

Get a copy and read it, Harry! (I bet you won't).

And as I have pointed out before, lower doses might be worse than
slightly higher ones. This has been one of the lessons of radio-active
iodine ablation of thyroid glands. Never as simple as it first seems.

--
Rod