Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FSSF

(17 posts)
18. I have no idea what the first bit is even referring to.
Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:52 PM
Jan 2012

So I'll Ignore it.

As far as you second point I've never stipulated otherwise, of course this is irrelevant. It varies significantly from location to location and from person to person, and has no bearing on whether a slight increase in exposure to radiation over a large population would cause increased mortality, no matter the source (medical, background, nuclear accident etc).

That comes down to no-threshold vs threshold. The lack of a threshold is the health standard and generally agreed upon - it's the one with the most evidence.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Report: Japan kept secret...»Reply #18