Environment & Energy

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

12. And what case would that be?

Reply to jpak (Reply #8)

Thu May 17, 2012, 08:52 PM

May 2012

You didn't seriously read that to say that the low constant dose had destroyed the genes, did you?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Low-dose study finds no effects [View all] FBaggins May 2012 OP

I'd like to see this study . . . Richard D May 2012 #1

This is hardly the first with the same implications. FBaggins May 2012 #3

Ionizing radiation RE: cellular repair was taught in high schools in the 70's FogerRox May 2012 #9

And as NPR recently informed us (again, twice in 2 years) Jellyfish are good to eat. TalkingDog May 2012 #2

I've eaten jellyfish. Richard D May 2012 #4

Wait, wait... I got one more TalkingDog May 2012 #5

Ah, I see what you're trying to do there. Nice NickB79 May 2012 #7

Latest research from MIT PamW May 2012 #6

I think there are at least 2 legit models FogerRox May 2012 #10

Just as importantly... FBaggins May 2012 #11

The LBNL study pretty much blows away the no-threshold model PamW May 2012 #29

They watched it, thats really cool FogerRox May 2012 #38

"the absense of the genes" jpak May 2012 #8

And what case would that be? FBaggins May 2012 #12

A spelling error by the editor of a newspaper signifies what? nt NickB79 May 2012 #13

Toxic Sludge Is Good For You bananas May 2012 #14

This is a study done by MIT and published in a peer-reviewed journal, that replicated a previous one NickB79 May 2012 #15

The OP and post 6 kristopher May 2012 #16

WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! PamW May 2012 #43

Excellent! flamingdem May 2012 #27

Problem is RobertEarl May 2012 #17

I'm sure the study itself is neither compromised nor poorly done. kristopher May 2012 #19

You don't understand the paper... PamW May 2012 #30

Why not just do a study of the fallout zone of the 1950s Downwinder May 2012 #18

Or read this about TMI RobertEarl May 2012 #20

Even more fictional "reality", eh? FBaggins May 2012 #21

Semantics RobertEarl May 2012 #22

Semantics? FBaggins May 2012 #23

Eh? RobertEarl May 2012 #24

Yes. That's what I'm claiming. FBaggins May 2012 #25

Possible relevance? RobertEarl May 2012 #26

TMI - no significant radiation dose to the populace.. PamW May 2012 #28

Pam RobertEarl May 2012 #31

SCIENCE; not polls PamW May 2012 #32

Like i says RobertEarl May 2012 #33

Maybe you could over react some more FogerRox May 2012 #39

Thanks for your reply RobertEarl May 2012 #41

Releases ARE monitored PamW May 2012 #61

Yeah, sure, all releases are all monitored 100% RobertEarl May 2012 #62

Of course you remain mired in confusion. FBaggins May 2012 #34

Oh? RobertEarl May 2012 #35

That's a precarious perch you've set up for yourself. FBaggins May 2012 #36

Wrong again RobertEarl May 2012 #37

Then why dont flight attendants and pilots who fly long haul FogerRox May 2012 #40

WRONG!! PamW May 2012 #44

Perhaps you can explain then, Downwinder May 2012 #45

That's EASY PamW May 2012 #46

So where are the Scientific Studies Of the 1950s fallout? Downwinder May 2012 #47

"Dirty bombs" are "Weapons of Mass Distraction" PamW May 2012 #48

It has been half a century since the Nevada open air tests, long Downwinder May 2012 #49

Are you under the impression that there haven't been any? FBaggins May 2012 #50

Here is a TMI study from NIH.gov RobertEarl May 2012 #51

Have you read it? Are you thus admitting your error? FBaggins May 2012 #52

If you were honest RobertEarl May 2012 #53

Did you read the post at all? FBaggins May 2012 #54

If you were honest RobertEarl May 2012 #55

Baggins is not saying Nukes are Ok Thats BUll crap. FogerRox May 2012 #57

More like 104 nuclear units PamW May 2012 #59

Drat, I flipped the numbers, FogerRox May 2012 #60

Becasue Congress has ruled you are in 100% perfect health upon enlistment happyslug May 2012 #58

This is good news for space travel, I think. joshcryer May 2012 #42

Well, no FogerRox May 2012 #56