BELIEVE   ME   NOT!    -     A   SKEPTIC's   GUIDE  

. . . can.¹

Caveat! I encourage you to distrust everything I say (and everything anyone else says) on this subject until you have seen (and believe) the data for yourself. Like most people, I am not a scholar or even an expert in the field of radiation hazards, just an amateur with strong convictions which will distort my presentation of the evidence; my only excuse for subjecting you to my opinions is that everyone else seems to be so timid about expressing any ideas on this subject that the only information you are likely to get elsewhere (without determined effort on your part) is even more politically motivated and less reliable than mine, which I acquired through informal discussions with various people who do have legitimate professional credentials.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . individual.²

Whether or not genetic mutations are beneficial for the human race as a whole is a difficult question both scientifically and ethically; I will avoid trying to answer it.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . hours!³

Whether this is because of multiple redundancy or context programming I do not know, but it sure is an impressive feat.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . hours.⁴

I should add an extra caveat at this point: what I have said about single- and double-strand breaks and healing times is what I recall from sitting on the PhD committee of a student working on pion radiotherapy about ten years ago. I don't imagine it has been substantially revised since then, but I am not absolutely sure. If you want a more reliable witness I will be glad to direct you to local experts.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . idea.⁵

Even if a sufficiently totalitarian regime could be instituted to forcibly prevent the population from increasing exponentially once immortality was commonplace, would such a thing be beneficial? Would life seem as precious if it were not so annoyingly short? Again I shall bypass the thorny issues and play the hand I am dealt.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . Effect.⁶

Also, surprisingly enough, from the radioactivity released from fossil fuels in combustion, which is far greater than that released by a nuclear power plant in normal operation.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . high.⁷

I have been assuming 30%, but that number could be out of date; I don't think it makes much difference to my arguments.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . exposure⁸

I can remember sticking my feet into the fluoroscope at the corner shoe store and looking at my foot bones inside my new shoes; it was quite popular about 40 years ago.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . 20.⁹

Actually, the RBE of neutrons varies tremendously for different tissues and is a complicated function of the neutron energy because of the energy-dependence of the neutron capture cross-sections of different elements. Neutrons are very bad.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . stick.¹⁰

The purpose of SI units is evidently to make it as difficult as possible for intelligent laypersons to understand what "experts" are talking about. I cannot imagine a more humiliating posthumous fate than to have countless generations confused by some perfectly simple unit renamed the "brewer" in honour of my efforts to make some field more understandable.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . 1138 mR.¹¹

Note: medical X-rays are normally localized to the region being imaged; they are not "whole-body" and therefore are not as bad as they look. Still . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . 0.7 mR/h.¹²

Note: that is per hour at a typical cruising altitude for a normal commercial jetliner; thus an average round-trip transcontinental flight yields a dose of 6-8 mR! The estimated average cosmic-ray dose for airline crew is 670 mR/y. Astronauts have it even worse.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . are!¹³

I don't have the numbers for the Okanagen, but I believe they are even higher than for South Dakota.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . another.¹⁴

I think Vancouver is just slightly on the hazardous side; but in the Okanagen, where there are concentrated uranium ore deposits, I might choose to live in a wooden house. However, you should check out the latest data before you jump to any conclusions.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . you!¹⁵

Married folks who sleep together pick up a few extra mR/y from their spouses!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . here.¹⁶

One may feel that there are simply too many, period!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. . . worrisome.¹⁷

Needless to say, one should never touch a radioactive source, because 1/r² can be very large as $r \to 0$.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.