Reply #14: ok i'll bite [View All]

[treepig]

and point out yet again that there's a vast difference between science from web-sites (which you love), and science from peer-reviewed research papers (which can be found by following the PUBMED link at the NIH's site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ).

for example, the statement

epidemiological data fail to demonstrate detrimental effects of ionising radiation at absorbed doses smaller than 100-200 mSv.

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12719923

makes the recommendation of "the committee" you cite that human exposure should be maintained under 0.1 mSv a bit odd. in fact, if you go to the EPA's "calculate your background exposure page" at

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

you'll find that radon alone (listed at 200 mrem, which is equal to 0.2 mSv) is double the maximum allowed dose according to this committee. then if you fly or live at high altitudes, you're really screwed! naturally!!

then the same link makes ridiculous statements such as:

Novel exposures include internal exposures to artificial isotopes like Strontium-90 and Plutonium-239 but also include micrometer range aggregates of isotopes (hot particles) which may consist of entirely man-made isotopes (e.g. plutonium).

these isotopes of course existed naturally during life's early stages, courtesy of the oklo natural breeder reactor (see http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/ ) and cells have evolved defense mechanisms that allow them to cope with low to moderate levels of these, and all other radioisotopes, quite adequately.