Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lockport Blast: safety of oi - (nf) Message-ID: <3400017@ea.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 14:59:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.3400017 Posted: Thu Aug 2 14:59:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 23:44:31 EDT References: <447@tty3b.UUCP> Lines: 27 Nf-ID: #R:tty3b:-44700:ea:3400017:000:1162 Nf-From: ea!mwm Aug 2 13:59:00 1984 #R:tty3b:-44700:ea:3400017:000:1162 ea!mwm Aug 2 13:59:00 1984 /***** ea:net.followup / tty3b!mjk / 5:14 pm Jul 30, 1984 */ Come on, Henry, everyone should know by now that ALL radiation is dangerous. There is no such thing as a "safe level"; there is only a officially approved "acceptable level". "Acceptable" to whom is never talked about. "Stuff at that level" is most certainly dangerous, but there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about it. We can, however, try to avoid adding any more exposure. Mike Kelly /* ---------- */ Mike, last time I checked, the above statement was just flat *false*. We don't know *anything* about what radiation at low levels (such as those involved with standing in Grand Central Station, or near a nuke plant, or between two of your friends) does to people. For safety studies et. al., people like to *assume* that the effects can be extrapolated linearly. This doesn't make it so. Some think that we could be better off than that assumption; that there is a "cutoff" at low enough levels, such that there is no damage. Then again, things could be worse, and all radiation levels below our horizon could have the same effect as levels immediately below our horizon.