Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
5. Well, dosing in this case isn't a one time and it's gone event.
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:12 PM
Mar 2014

Also the proximity of the particles to cell tissue is a factor that makes the X-ray comparison questionable without knowing a bit more about who is making that assessment.

Why does it make no sense to compare in-flight radiation exposure and ingesting radioactive isotopes? It is wrong to compare internal emitters with external emitters, ie, ingesting radioactive isotopes versus in-flight exposure or background radiation. It is like comparing warming oneself near a fire versus eating a red hot coal. Physicians for Social Responsibility in the United States recently issued a statement asserting “there is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period.” There are a number of different types of radiation, including cosmic radiation from space, terrestrial radiation which is emitted by radioactive elements in the ground, and man-made radiation such as that released by the detonation of an atomic bomb or by nuclear reactors in meltdown....

More here:
http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/060411.php

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»(13) Workers at Nuclear W...»Reply #5