jimb@ism780 (02/27/86)
> If that was true, then the entire state of Nevada's population would be > dead by now from the A-Bomb tests of the 50s and 60s. Have you ever been in Elko or Winnemucca or Carson city on a Saturday night? You might wonder. :-;
carroll@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/06/86)
Perhaps it is true that any radiation is dangerous, but people who scream about a possible 0.5 REM/year exposure, but live in Denver or equivalent (where they get about 30 extra REM/year compared to a sea level local) confuse the **** out of me. If the .5 is so bad that we need to shut it all down, why is the extra 30 ok? Also, try to avoid sleeping with anyone; they're radioactive too ya know.
animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) (03/07/86)
[support your local librarian--find the references yourself!] I found an interesting tidbit in the Chicago Tribune this morning, courtesy of the N. Y. Times. It said that officials of the federal Energy Department do acknowledge that "a shuttle explosion on the launching pad could, under some circumstances, release a harmful cloud of radioactive material. "But the officials said they could not describe during an open session of Congress the health or environmental consequences of such an accident because the damage estimates are classified." (quotes are from the article as it appeared in the Trib) So, it looks like the official line is that we'll just have to trust that the government (DOD, NASA, whatever) does know what the hazards are, and will take appropriate precautions. Sleep well tonight, Florida. * * * * On this same topic, a while back I said that Utah, which is downwind of the Nevada nuclear testing range, had an unusually high incidence of cancer. I got some mail about that observation, and stand corrected-- somewhat. As a whole, the state has a lower than average cancer incidence, attributed to its large Mormon population (Mormons do not use tobacco or alcohol). However, the southwestern corner of the state (the section most immediately downwind of Nellis AFB/Nuclear Test Site) does have a higher than usual incidence of leukemia. According to the daily papers, exposure to plutonium has been linked to this disease.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/14/86)
In article <15700058@uiucdcsb> carroll@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > Perhaps it is true that any radiation is dangerous, but people who >scream about a possible 0.5 REM/year exposure, but live in Denver or >equivalent (where they get about 30 extra REM/year compared to a sea level >local) confuse the **** out of me. If the .5 is so bad that we need to >shut it all down, why is the extra 30 ok? Also, try to avoid sleeping with >anyone; they're radioactive too ya know. I remember reading somewhere that Grand Central station gives off more radioactivity because of its granite than is present at a functioning nuclear power station (outside the containment building, of course). -- --MKR Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. - Dylan