|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Researchers agree that space radiation can cause cancer. They'rejust not sure how.
NASA Science News for May 9, 2005
Researchers agree that space radiation can cause cancer. They're just not sure how. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2....htm?list89139 The Science@NASA Podcast feed is available at http://science.nasa.gov/podcast.xml. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Well, for one thing, cosmic rays are the "hardest" form of radiation there
is, even harder than gamma radiation. That fact must have something to do with it. Juan "Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... NASA Science News for May 9, 2005 Researchers agree that space radiation can cause cancer. They're just not sure how. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2....htm?list89139 The Science@NASA Podcast feed is available at http://science.nasa.gov/podcast.xml. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for May 9, 2005 Researchers agree that space radiation can cause cancer. They're just not sure how. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2....htm?list89139 The Science@NASA Podcast feed is available at http://science.nasa.gov/podcast.xml. Uncle Al is **tremendously** amused over the Offical NASA line that "radiation is relatively poor at inducing cancer." Why is a patient covered with a lead blanket for dental x-rays? Why does the EPA go absolutely ape**** over microcurie radioisotope contamination? A little tracer C-14 in your waste will get you in big, big trouble. Oh yes indeed. Ass-tronaughts who stayed aboard Mir and ISS FUBAR got radiation cataracts. They were one and all cooked medium rare. Having them above the atmosphere during a record-active solar cycle was not the smartest thing to do, either. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. She's an offhand angry bitch. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 09 May 2005 10:33:25 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote: Uncle Al is **tremendously** amused over the Offical NASA line that "radiation is relatively poor at inducing cancer." What, you need a definition for "relatively"? All the report said was that radiation was a much less efficient carcinogen than many chemicals. That doesn't mean you want to be exposed to radiation needlessly. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Uncle Al posted"
"Why is a patient covered with a lead blanket for dental x-rays?" Because the dentist is attempting to protect himself from junk lawsuits charging that the reason a child was born with defective genes or has ADD was the dentist's fault. Take careful note of the fact the medical community routinely and repeatedly employs x-rays with no such window dressing such as lead aprons, and their x-rays are both much more energetic and have higher intensity levels. CT scans, in particular, really zap you with rems/sieverts, and I've had 6 over the past 10 months for diagnostic purposes. These were in addition to 12 conventional x-rays. (My 4 MRI scans don't count, because they don't employ ionizing radiation.) Everything is a trade-off. When I was much younger, the diagnostic procedure employed for the symptoms that I presented would have been "exploritory surgery." Would I have preferred exploritory surgery to all the radiation to which I have been exposed -- You can bet your sweet ass that I wouldn't! With respect to radiation cataracts, a neutron flux is known to cause cataracts, not conventional ionizing radiation. About two years ago I had cataract surgery to replace the lenses in both of my eyes (a trivial procedure today that I would prefer to a visit to the dentist). Could this have resulted from exposure to the neutron flux from a particle accelerator during my college years -- you bet. Still, no average person (except for an astronaut) is likely to encounter high level neturon fluxes during a visit to the dentist or during routine medical diagnostic procedures. The media has cultivated a fear of radiation in the majority of our population, without realizing that radiation is a component of Earth's natural environment. It comes from the sky, and from beneath the surface. You cannot escape it. Toxic, carcinogenic chemicals you can with effort avoid but not radiation. You can minimize your radiation exposure by avoiding travel by air, living on or near granite based mountain formations, or building your home in areas where the bedrock (ledge) is close to the surface such as New England. Still, the reduction in radiation exposure you will obtain will be minimal -- almost negligible. Ionizing radiation has a positve side too, since man's exposure to natural radiatin has led to mutations the drove the evolution of species and produced the vast variety of plants and animals that we now have. It can produce a genius like Uncle Al, or a drooling fool. Natural selection takes care of the rest of the job. Kindest regards, Harry C. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
They used to say the same thing about cigarettes
All hail Georgito Busholini, our beloved El Douche`, and his brave Oilshirts----Today Iraq, Tomorrow Ethiopia, Corsica, Tunis!!! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote: On Mon, 09 May 2005 10:33:25 -0700, Uncle Al wrote: Uncle Al is **tremendously** amused over the Offical NASA line that "radiation is relatively poor at inducing cancer." What, you need a definition for "relatively"? All the report said was that radiation was a much less efficient carcinogen than many chemicals. How do you define comparable units of measurement for quantities of radiation and chemicals so you can compare how efficiently they cause cancer? -- David Canzi |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Why is a patient
covered with a lead blanket for dental x-rays?" Because the dentist is attempting to protect himself from junk lawsuits charging that the reason a child was born with defective genes or has ADD was the dentist's fault. True, although the idea of lead aprons actually came about through logical efforts at radiation hygiene. In reality though, the patient is probably more likely to be hurt by the weight of the lead apron than the X-rays. Marty |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | History | 158 | December 13th 14 09:50 PM |
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe | Br Dan Izzo | Policy | 6 | September 7th 04 09:29 PM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective | Jason Donahue | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | February 1st 04 03:33 AM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |