NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/physics/14001

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-02 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky sci.physics:14001 sci.environment:10999 misc.consumers:16014
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.environment,misc.consumers
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:34:17 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Sill) writes:
>>>
>>>Which of my statements is not true?  Do you consider organic foods
>>>concentrated sources of radioactivity?  I think they are only in the literal
>>>sense, i.e., they're more radioactive than air or water.  But if they are as
>>>concentrated as the sources in smoke detectors and compact fluorescents, why
>>>don't the manufacturers just use a chunk of cucumber and remove the warning
>>>label?
>>
>>     Untrue: "Radioactivity *is* a different kind of threat than most
>>              parents are used to dealing with".
>
>Right.  It's just like the usual mechanical, electrical, and chemical threats
>that parents know how to prevent, recognize, and treat.  Not.

     Absolutely.  They know how to prevent nasty consequences from
     the sources in smoke detectors and in bulbs better than any of
     the usual sources.  They prevent such consequences by simply doing
     nothing.

     They prevent other radioactive threats by simply not gaining access
     (or dad not bringing any home from the office).

>>     Untrue:  the implication that the sources in smoke detectors and
>>              flourescent bulbs constitutes a realistic threat to our
>>              children due to radioactivity.
>
>Oh, I *implied* that, did I?  And implications are either true or untrue?

     Absolutely, since you seem so interested in discussing nonexistent
     'health threats' as if they are realistic.

>>     I'd love to see your house (if you have kid(s)), if you still consider
>>     this a discussion of realistic threats.
>
>Yes, I have three children.  Yes, I have smoke detectors.  No, I don't have
>compact fluorescents...yet.  No, I don't consider these devices a serious
>threat.
>
>But, then, that's because we've talked about the potential dangers and I know
>what to do to minimize them.

     Have you taken apart every object in your home with a transformer inside?
     You'll want to see how difficult it will be to help your children
     avoid the very real threat of electrocution.  Have you put all of
     your forks under lock and key?  After all, if you do not have outlet
     covers, these are a very dangerous electrocution threat.  If you do,
     they can be used as a lever to pry outlet covers off thereby leading
     to the above threat.  Have you tested each pane of glass in your house
     to see if it is shatters appropriately?  Sometimes even the smallest of
     children are able to throw something into a pane of glass.  These 'risks'
     are much more important than those sources.  Thus, I suspect that
     you have done detailed research into whether your contractor supplied
     you with tempered glass as per code.

     By the way, if you were able to 'minimize' the risk of the source
     in your smoke detector, how exactly would one 'maximize' the risk.
     To me, this curve has zero slope.

                                      dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            [phone]