At 07:59 AM 8/15/97 -0400, you wrote:

>Mike, if there is NO SAFE DOSE you better stop living, but quick!  Who
>knows when you might get cancer.

Hey Andy you've misunderstood. I am saying that we should NOT be misled
into thinking there is such a notion as a safe DOSE of radiation, if
people have the illusion there is, then they will not be as quick to
object about those waste dumps which 'only give off safe doses', would
you want a 'SAFE DOSE' waste dump next to your primary school ?

Radiation exposure is like being shot at with lots of small powerful
bullets - even one does damage, and the effects are accumulative. So
therefore there is no SAFE dose of radiation - ie Don't accept the
notion that even small number of bullets hitting you is safe !

>This gets back to the "reliability" thread which discussed probability of
>harm based upon statistics.  If you aren't willing to risk a little, you
>end up at a dead-end.

Having the appreciation there is NO safe dose does not mean you don't take
a risk - especially if you already have cancer and are considering radiation
therapy as ONE of the potential treatments - I am saying its up to the
persons own commonsense and is not subject to a dehumanising formula
which has no basis in reality and can never be tested by experiment.
If I was to get cancer I would only consider radiation therapy as a last
resort - its like removing a growth by shooting at it. Especially since there
are many other treatments for a vast majority of cancers which are nowhere
near as indiscriminant as firing radiation at it.

>Better stop being capitalistic, too.  (Oh wait, you're from DOWN THERE, I
>forgot, sorry, didn't mean to imply you already were).

Sorry Andy - I don't know what you are referring to here - please explain ?

>>We've only had enough when its cleared up Norm, otherwise we will
>>all end up glowing in the dark and coughing up blood due to ignorance ;-)
>
>Norm and I went to college together for a year.  You picked the wrong guy
>to discuss Nuclear Physics with - you'll lose!  He's even more of a geek
>than me! (Norm- ignore that comment or I'll get the rest of the dorm after
>you <G>  Say, you get the homecoming flyer this week?  Going?)

Well I hope the College training was comprehensive because some of the
things Norm has said are tangential to basic facts about electromagnetic
radiation - maybe he's forgotten Maxwell and Debroglie. Back in 1986 I
was chief engineer and radiation officer for a local company - we used
Cesium 137 and Cobalt 60 sources for measureing iron ore flow rates in
a processor controlled feedback system. Even though I was at University
back in late 70's we still had to undergo a significant crash course in
the whole field - the most notable issue being that any ionising radiation
is accumulative - so don't ADD to that already in the background.

Rgds

mike
Perth, Western Australia