Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/24/2007 7:30:59 PM PST by Flavius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
To: Flavius

Uranium- it ain’t just for breakfast anymore.


2 posted on 11/24/2007 7:31:45 PM PST by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rear view mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

Bout time, now where can I order me some of them radium suppositories?


4 posted on 11/24/2007 7:33:28 PM PST by cripplecreek (Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius
I did here somewhere that the rate of certain cancers among survivors of Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki was remarkably low. I think the belief was that the dose of radiation which had been received had acted as a preventative chemotherapy treatment.

I have no idea if there's any validity to that, and no, I wouldn't want to sign up for the treatment.

5 posted on 11/24/2007 7:34:41 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

Radioactivity is good. It’s a treatment against cancer.


6 posted on 11/24/2007 7:36:07 PM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 50mm

apropos...


7 posted on 11/24/2007 7:36:08 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

—IIRC, Dr. Edward Teller put it in perspective when he stated that he got more radioactive exposure flying to visit Three Mile Island than anyone did from the released radioactive material-—


11 posted on 11/24/2007 7:42:23 PM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

there goes polonium-210’s future.


12 posted on 11/24/2007 7:43:18 PM PST by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius
Radioactivity's danger overstated?

Unless you're a smoker, or eat too many cheeseburgers or drive an SUV or ..........

14 posted on 11/24/2007 7:56:24 PM PST by umgud (the profound is only so to those that it is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

15 posted on 11/24/2007 7:56:44 PM PST by macamadamia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

There’s been a lot written about how low-dose radiation exposure can be good for you. It turns out those healing springs known since antiquity were good because of the background radiation in the rocks, not the waters.


16 posted on 11/24/2007 7:56:57 PM PST by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of the death of the retired Soviet spy whose drink had been poisoned with radioactive materials. I guess, in his case, the dangers of radiation were not overstated.


22 posted on 11/24/2007 8:13:57 PM PST by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

“Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest x-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.” - J. Frank Parnell in Repo Man


23 posted on 11/24/2007 8:16:57 PM PST by james500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

I don’t know. I see a lot of articles about the problems the depleted uranium ammo has done to our own troops.


24 posted on 11/24/2007 8:45:27 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius
Indeedy. Look at the BIER reports. 10 REMS of exposure increases your cancer threat by 1%, according to the latest. That’s perhaps 2 abdominal CAT scans, and scads of “chest x-rays”, and 40 hours of plane flight.

And look up Radiation Hormesis, the theory that some exposure may be beneficial. We live in an environment with a fair amount of natural radiation, it would be no surprise if we adapted to it and used it to our benefit.

Then there are all the Fiestaware plates out there.

27 posted on 11/24/2007 8:50:46 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius; ClearCase_guy

Deaths from radiation for those near the center of the atomic blasts were high. Then, there is a ring around the blast sites where deaths were lower than normal. Farther away, deaths were normal. So there is a dose of radiation, even from the atomic bombs, that lowered the incidence of cancer.

The fact is that almost everything that will kill you, in a high enough dose, is actually good for you if the right dose is found.


38 posted on 11/24/2007 9:33:45 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius
The research includes work done by GSF Research Center for Health and the Environment in Neuherberg, Germany -- Europe's largest radiation protection institute -- for the European Union's Southern Urals Radiation Risk Research project, and by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, as well as a U.S.-Japanese epidemiological study.

"For commendable reasons, many critics have greatly exaggerated the health risks of radioactivity," Albrecht Kellerer, a Munich radiation biologist, told the newspaper. "But contrary to widespread opinion, the number of victims is by no means in the tens of thousands."
40 posted on 11/24/2007 9:41:37 PM PST by restornu (Improve The Shining Moment! Don't let them pass you by... PRESS FORWARD MITT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

I agree somewhat, but many of the deaths do take decades to happen. Naval personnel that were stationed at Hawthorne during WW II have had a cancer rate that is more than five times normal.


42 posted on 11/24/2007 9:47:22 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

Radioactivity ain’t fun. Just ask the Russian children born with no legs and three arms near Chernobyl.


47 posted on 11/24/2007 10:19:56 PM PST by TheThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius

in a DU tank shell,
or any other such projectile,
does the DU material come in contact
with the rifle barrel?


52 posted on 11/25/2007 12:24:40 AM PST by riored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Flavius
Radioactivity’s danger overstated?

It is not a black/white settled issue. Radiation/Radiation poisoning is a matter of degree and exposure. Sort of like the Sun or fire in a way.

The long term effects of residual Radioactive contamination have not borne out to what was originally predicted. Look at Hiroshima and the area around Chernobyl. Apparently the soil will absorb and contain these products.

However it looks as Chernobyl was contaminated to a much greater measure than Hiroshima, so the comparison may not be valid. And I think that since nuclear radiation is just one part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, that biologically we can absorb and recover from its deleterious effects within limits.

55 posted on 11/25/2007 1:17:08 AM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson