RE: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

Or in more direct wording the benefit of the mentioned radiation was a greater than 30 fold reduction in cancer when compared to those people who were not "accidentally' exposed to long term Co60 radiation. Children born to parents exposed to the radiation showed 14 times fewer congenital

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

Not only is there good evidence that the LNT theory is wrong, there is quite a lot of evidence for hormesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ "The observation that the cancer mortality rate of the exposed population is only about 3 percent of the cancer mortality rate of

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

On 06/25/2016 03:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: At the other extreme . . . I do not know whether radiation actually promotes health. I have heard it might, but I have not read the studies, so I cannot judge. But biology is full of surprises, so I would not discount the possibility. Dunno if

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

Well that sucks. I can totally imagine the ending, tho -- the one thing Abd was really, really poor at was shutting up. In any case, if a troll (Christian or not, sounds like that's what it was) provoked someone so badly that both the troll and the target were banned, that /certainly/

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

I think there probably is a relatively high threshold for ionizing radiation, below which no statistically significant increases in lukemia, Parkinsons, and other cancers will be found. The danger is that some people may be extraordinarily sensitive and WILL develop these illnesses when exposed

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

People and all other species have been exposed to some radiation, from cosmic sources, the sun, and from things like radon and uranium on earth. Biological systems are incredibly good at self-repair. So it seems unlikely to me that low level exposure always causes significant or even measurable

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

It's about keeping standards... not justifying 2 wrongs. Abd was banned, I think, 3 years ago, when a Christian creationist was attacking Abd for being Muslim and Abd was defending his religion relentlessly, but providing historical facts and explaining things in context. The attack lasted for 2

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

I dunno -- I looked back a ways and didn't see anything interesting from Che, and saw a bunch of trolling garbage. And */Abd was banned??/* When was that? And why? He was the most long winded poster I've encountered in a long time, and a bit tendentious, but his posts were generally on

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

How much difference does this make, in practical terms? I'm not sure it's all that significant. If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold below which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is no "medical threshold". As an analogy which may help

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

I think he posted useful comments before and there was a trouble maker here before, way worse than this, bad mouthing Abd due his religion. So, unless Abd is unbanned, I cannot see fair grounds to ban Che. 2016-06-25 15:23 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence : > Hallo, Bill! Sorry to

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

Hallo, Bill! Sorry to bother you about this "Che" is a pseudonym with no information about the actual person behind it. That's not forbidden but it's not exactly smiled on either. "Che" mostly posts troll stuff and ad hominems. No surprise, given the choice of pseudonym, which is

[Vo]:LENR comment, info, more from Sochi

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-25-2016-lenr-comments-info-more.html a nostalgic and a sad comment please read the info you will discover interesting things Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

Ok, so who let the troll in… From: Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Lennart Thornros Subject: Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info WTF do you know about anything, eh? Typical knee-jerk crap from people who in fact

[Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker buster” salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists. On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of radiation. They assert that

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Che > How did you become a pro? > Reading a book? > That goes a long way, but in the end it is like in science the experience > of physical experiment is what counts. > Then you will find there are many opinions and

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

WTF do you know about anything, eh? Typical knee-jerk crap from people who in fact believe some corporation are going to shower their little LENR projects with oodles of cash at some point, and make them filthy rich.. So of course they support this bastard social-economic order, however bad it is

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

Che How did you become a pro? Reading a book? That goes a long way, but in the end it is like in science the experience of physical experiment is what counts. Then you will find there are many opinions and in my book they are all ok. Seldom are we 100% right. On Jun 24, 2016 21:30, "Che"