Stuff to do with Hormesis, Paul Langley’s Nuclear History Blog, 25 April 13, “Addressing the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy in Adelaide, chair of the uranium company Toro Energy Erica Smyth said the true cost of coal was not yet being paid for by the community. She also said that there was a strong argument that some radiation “was good for you” …..” Adelaide Advertiser newspaper, August 13, 2011 page 7.
Smyth, representing her employer, a uranium miner, states that a “strong” “argument” claims that “some radiation” was “good for you”.
How much uranium is required to produce this “good radiation” ? And how is that “good radiation” to delivered to the people of this state? Via the milkman? The radiation emitted by uranium and its decay products have to be present within the human body to have any effect. How would a purchaser of the product know that the radiation emitted was “good”?
What are the “arguments” Smith refers to? She does not say.
How “strong” are these arguments? We don’t know, Smyth does not debate the issue, she merely states her position in relation to the “strong argument”. Smith is obviously all for the idea that “some” radiation is “good for you”. If one is not thinking, but listening as if the information were an advert for a desirable product, one might really want it……
The substances extracted by uranium mining consist of uranium and its decay products. So let’s have a look at these substances and the radiations they emit. After specifying the radiations I will look at the claimed “strong argument” regarding the alleged benefit endowed onto humanity by these radiations, via the release of the substance which emit them into the biosphere.
Yadah Yadah... heard it all before........