Reply #17: no, i suspect it was the information i presented over in the other thread

[treepig]

namely, in these links:


http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/execsum98.html


http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm

i must say it's gratifying to see a former detractor jump on the bandwagon


:thumbsup:

the bottom line is, that if you believe in evolution, it's not a big leap to accept radiation hormesis. for example, if you check out the information i presented in post #12 of this thread, mother nature herself was apparently operating a fission reactor in africa for several hundred thousand years during early stages of life. consequently, all life - including our very own ancestral forms of life - is well equipped to live in an environment considerably more radioactive than our current one. once again to be clear, i'm in no way advocating deliberate exposure to excess radiation based on current levels of knowledge - the evidence, however, is quite overwhelming that a daily commute through grand central station, or drinking water laced with the epa-allowed 30mg/m^3 level of uranium, is not all that dangerous. in fact, it's quite conforting to think it may be beneficial, for the placebo effect if nothing else.