Small doses ARE bad for you.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/51.full

harry wrote:
Small doses ARE bad for you.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/51.full

Please don't shout - especially when what you are shouting is untrue.

As someone who has forgotten most of his undergraduate physics learnt in
part from a former member of the Manhattan Project I'll risk the comment
that (i) the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists seems to me just possibly
a wee bit "partis pris" and (ii) the author doesn't say what you said he
said. You only have to read the last sentence in the abstract"

"Though current consensus supports a linear no-threshold model, evidence
suggests that these biological responses just may overturn that
thinking."

Please not "suggests" + "just may" does not equal "99.99% confidence"
(the minimum IMHO at which you can run naked from your bath shouting
Eureka!)

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

harry wrote:
Small doses ARE bad for you.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/51.full
How many times do I have to explain to you that that site is a pure
propaganda site organised by an ex CND group?

They are cherry picking data to 'prove' something that is completely
false: Just like teh bloke taht sold you those solar panels was.

Sucker.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Robin wrote:
harry wrote:
Small doses ARE bad for you.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/51.full

Please don't shout - especially when what you are shouting is untrue.

As someone who has forgotten most of his undergraduate physics learnt in
part from a former member of the Manhattan Project I'll risk the comment
that (i) the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists seems to me just possibly
a wee bit "partis pris" and (ii) the author doesn't say what you said he
said. You only have to read the last sentence in the abstract"

"Though current consensus supports a linear no-threshold model, evidence
suggests that these biological responses just may overturn that
thinking."

Please not "suggests" + "just may" does not equal "99.99% confidence"
(the minimum IMHO at which you can run naked from your bath shouting
Eureka!)

You don't think harry actually read it?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/05/2012 19:04, harry wrote:
Small doses ARE bad for you.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/51.full

Tell that to those in Dartmoor or Edinburgh...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Robin writes
harry wrote:
Small doses ARE bad for you.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/51.full

Please don't shout - especially when what you are shouting is untrue.

As someone who has forgotten most of his undergraduate physics learnt in
part from a former member of the Manhattan Project


Harry has an HNC in boiler stoking - he can't be wrong


--
geoff

On 18/05/2012 22:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/05/2012 19:04, harry wrote:
Small doses ARE bad for you.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/51.full

Tell that to those in Dartmoor or Edinburgh...

Or, indeed, those who have occupational exposure to radiation.

'General patterns of mortality

As in previous NRRW analyses, overall mortality was lower than expected
from national rates. Although the overall magnitude of the HWE has
changed little between analyses, SMRs have varied over the follow-up,
with indications of a decrease among workers with at least 30 years
radiation work'

NRRW = National Registry for Radiation Workers
HWE = Healthy Worker Effect
SME = Standardised Mortality Rate

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v1.../6604825a.html

Colin Bignell