I've been served

Radiation DOES cause cancer- in the
statement provided there were no qualifiers,
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that radiation CAN cause cancer? Trace
radiation is constant on earth, yet cancer is not. Just a thought-Mike

Bruce Remick wrote:

"Alan Williams" wrote in message
...
Michael Ng wrote:

I disagree.

A jury of your peers does not mean a jury of friends or people who
necessarily share the same ideas. People sometimes confuse the word
"peer" with "friend". The two are not necessarily equivalent. A peer
is someone who is of general equivalent stature to you, whether it be
of age, intelligence, general (not specific) occupations, etc.

For example, let's take a murder case in which the defendant is a
known member of a violent gang. Is the defendant going to have a jury
of gang members? Probably (and almost certainly) not.

In fact, in most jury trials, the opposite is true. Those who have
the most knowledge of the subject are excused from the jury because
just that. In the usual court system, juries are not supposed to be
knowledgable. Such knowledge is to be determined by (expert)
witnesses.

Therefore, I disagree with the statement below.

-- Mike

The last time I was called for Jury Duty, it was Federal District Court.
Some poor soul was alleging that his cancer was due to his government
service. About 200 of us were herded in for jury selection.

After the simple 'weeding questions', (have you ever worked for, do you
now work for, are you related to, etc) they asked "Do you believe that
radiation causes cancer?" I stood up.

Me and two others. ;-/

I probably would have, too. Even though I believe that radiation also
*cures* cancer. You takes yer pick. Either way they are usually related
somehow in most peoples' minds.

Never been called for jury duty in over 40 years of votin' and drivin'.
I'd tell 'em I would make a good juror, considering I can pretty much tell
if a person's guilty just by lookin' at him.

Bruce

Jury duty, hell! With a talent like that you should be a cop!

Alan
'or a third grade teacher'

Steven Preston wrote:

Bob wrote:

Radiation does not cause cancer. Certain forms
of radiation in high dosages could cause cancer
to form years later, but low level doses are
generally quite benign. You showed that you
believed something that is provably false, that
may have had a bearing on the case in point,
so its probably fair that you were dismissed.

You may want to take a little trip to the site of the Chernobyl reactor-
people there might have some insight for you as to how long it takes
cancer to develop after exposure. Radiation DOES cause cancer- in the
statement provided there were no qualifiers, so Alan believed something
proven to be true. Perhaps you'd care to let us know how many centigray
are safe and for what length of time so the fine folks in the raiology
department can dispose of all those silly lead shields.

-Steve

The three (of 200+!) of us who stood in agreement with the statement
were dismissed as jurors by the defendant, the Atomic Energy Commission,
using three of their allotment of preemptive challenges.

I remember thinking 'If this guy has to present his case to a jury pool
that does *not* believe radiation causes cancer, he's sunk.'

The three of us were told to approach the bench and explain our
affirmative responses. When they asked me why I agreed with the
statement, I answered, "Because I have a BS in Biology. I got an 'A' in
my Genetics class. This is a proven scientific fact." I was slightly
more long-winded than that, but if radiation does *not* cause cancer,
it's news, gentlemen, it's news.

Alan
'ask Madame Curie'

ask Madame Curie'

Or most of the people that worked in close proximity to the Manahattan Project.
They seemed to have a high incidence of cancer as well. But has there been an
actual measurement made of when it actually causes cancer? (As opposed to the
odds of cancer increasing) I am not trying to be contentious, just curious. Its
like saying that smoking causes cancer, yet we all have met 85 year old
smokestacks that look like hell, sound like hell, smell like hell but don't
have cancer. At least we can measure rads.
Mike
2 years with nukes

"Lyntoy1" wrote in message
...
ask Madame Curie'

Or most of the people that worked in close proximity to the Manahattan Project.
They seemed to have a high incidence of cancer as well. But has there been an
actual measurement made of when it actually causes cancer? (As opposed to the
odds of cancer increasing) I am not trying to be contentious, just curious. Its
like saying that smoking causes cancer, yet we all have met 85 year old
smokestacks that look like hell, sound like hell, smell like hell but don't
have cancer. At least we can measure rads.
Mike
2 years with nukes

The jury is back on solar UV radiation and melanomas, too.

--
Jeff
(Guilty as charged, m'Lud)

Lyntoy1 wrote:

ask Madame Curie'

Or most of the people that worked in close proximity to the Manahattan Project.
They seemed to have a high incidence of cancer as well. But has there been an
actual measurement made of when it actually causes cancer? (As opposed to the
odds of cancer increasing) I am not trying to be contentious, just curious. Its
like saying that smoking causes cancer, yet we all have met 85 year old
smokestacks that look like hell, sound like hell, smell like hell but don't
have cancer. At least we can measure rads.
Mike
2 years with nukes

As a measurement of incidence in the population coorelated to rads of
exposure? I have no idea what the numbers would be. That's a public
health issue. As a mechanism for genetic mutation? Absolutely related.
Xray and Gamma Ray destruction of the amino acid pairs in DNA leading to
replication errors.

Alan
'ACGT'

"Lyntoy1" wrote:
Or most of the people that worked in close proximity to the Manahattan
Project.
They seemed to have a high incidence of cancer as well. But has there been
an
actual measurement made of when it actually causes cancer? (As opposed to
the
odds of cancer increasing) I am not trying to be contentious, just
curious. Its
like saying that smoking causes cancer, yet we all have met 85 year old
smokestacks that look like hell, sound like hell, smell like hell but
don't
have cancer. At least we can measure rads.

From a 1980 (yikes!) nuclear health physics class I (think I) recall that
radiation exposure is cumulative--i.e., a subatomic particle absorbed today
counts against you as much as one that was absorbed decades ago, and
background radiation counts the same as that from point sources. At some
point, a threshold level is reached, triggering adverse effects. Of course,
much is unknown, and measuring it is multi-dimensional: measuring by rads,
rems, roentgens, etc. could all point to different thresholds.

--Chris

From: "Bob Peterson"

Radiation does not cause cancer.

More Rush Limbaugh science. Do you work for a tobacco company?

Regards,
Tom

(Lyntoy1) wrote in message ...
ask Madame Curie'

Or most of the people that worked in close proximity to the Manahattan Project.
They seemed to have a high incidence of cancer as well. But has there been an
actual measurement made of when it actually causes cancer? (As opposed to the
odds of cancer increasing) I am not trying to be contentious, just curious. Its
like saying that smoking causes cancer, yet we all have met 85 year old
smokestacks that look like hell, sound like hell, smell like hell but don't
have cancer. At least we can measure rads.
Mike
2 years with nukes

Cancer is cause by damage to dna. Many things damage dna, including
the
respiration byproduct (hydrogen peroxide) of your own cells. The
majority
of the time, the damage is repaired, but sometimes it isn't, and if
the
damage is in the right place you get cancer. UV light causes damage,
some
chemicals, including naturally occurring chemicals in your food can do
it.
That's why if you look at rats that are two years old, fed with a
completely
"organic" diet, 30 percent have cancer. Two years to a rat is about 80
years to a human, and 30 percent of 80 year olds who haven't
died of something else already also have cancer (not lung cancer,
which
until people started smoking, was extremely rare). That's also why you
see very rarely some very young people with a cancer like brain
cancer:
just by chance, because of all the trillions of chemical reactions
going
on in all people in the world, some damage occurred in the right place
which was not repaired. The older you get, your body's ability to
repair
damage decreases. That's why not every person who smokes gets cancer
(although if they could live to infinity, they would probably all get
lung cancer eventually). Some people, either by inheriting something
or by
lifestyle, have a better ability to repair the damage to dna.
Jack

In article ,
espam (WinWinscenario) writes:

More Rush Limbaugh science. Do you work for a tobacco company?

Regards,
Tom

What is "Rush Limbaugh science"? ...and what does working for a tobacco
company have to do with radiation?

Dondi3



DONDI enterprises. BUY, SELL, TRADE. RARE COINS & PRECIOUS METALS
Member COINNET, CSNS, ANA, INA, MOON, ILNA.