To: ransomnote
I have studied radiation and the effects of Hiroshima. Which study are you referring to and where is it. Lets look at the original information and not at a hit piece of a study. I suspect the writer has no background in radiation. Radiation is a natural process like the sun. Deep in the earth is radioactive decay that warms the earth also not not the spread of radioactive waste.
23 posted on
06/13/2012 12:22:58 PM PDT by
mountainlion
(I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
To: mountainlion
how are you supposed to avoid low doses of ionizing radiation? it’s naturally occuring. You can’t go outside, eat food, or heaven forbid you fly. I agree with mountainlion, sounds like no background in radiation. BTW which types of radiation are ionizing? :)
25 posted on
06/13/2012 12:32:47 PM PDT by
class8601_nuke
(don't just be critical, be prompt critical.)
To: mountainlion
The report is fine. The problem comes with the “Review of the Report” by an outsider Ian Goddard. The man draws conclusions from nothing. This report is not about “low levels of radiation”, but the radiation effects on the survivors in these cities between 1950 and 2003. This is the 14th report. It really does not provide any thing new.
To: mountainlion
You say: “I have studied radiation and the effects of Hiroshima. Which study are you referring to and where is it. Lets look at the original information and not at a hit piece of a study”
But your prior posts like #4 and #17 show a shocking lack of scientific knowledge and/or an intent to manipulate and distort. If you were an expert - you’d enhance the public’s understanding of radiation but I see you threw everything in there but bananas in an attempt to confuse and misinform. Not worth spending my time talking to an ignorant shill.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson