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.