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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!!!

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 04:14:55 +0000 (UTC),
(David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:

How do you define comparable units of measurement for quantities
of radiation and chemicals so you can compare how efficiently they
cause cancer?

I suppose "efficiency" is a little hard to define in this context. But
there are some chemicals (like strong methylating agents) that produce
cancers virtually 100% of the time following exposure above threshold
levels. Less potent carcinogens (including radiation) are assessed
statistically, where some correlate more strongly with cancers than
others. I think it is fair to say that a stronger correlation with
carcinogenicity could be defined as higher efficiency.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

wrote:
[...]
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.)
[...]

True ( MRI), but let's not forget the procedure used to be called
"Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" (NMR) and the word "Nuclear" scared all
the
ignorant morons out there, so it was renamed to Magnetic Resonance
Imaging;
the "Nuclear" in the original name refers to the nucleus of an atom,
and the
procedure uses radio (RF), not radioactive, waves.

Heh, "NMR" reminds me of a joke I posted to sci.electronics a decade or
so ago:

| "I'm going to give you an NMR you'll never forget", said the Nurse as
| she soaped the magnets and lubricated the probe.

FOr the humor impaired, say the letters N,M,R real fast several times;
it
also helps to do this after a few beers. :-)

"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