🚀 go-pugleaf

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.235542.17607@sopwith.uucp> snoopy@sopwith.uucp (Snoopy) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.185340.19127@unlinfo.unl.edu> cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis) writes:
>>
>>| Comparable sources can be found in smoke 
>>| detectors, lantern mantels and even salt substitute.
>>
>>Speaking of which, where can one get smoke detectors that are
>>nuke-free these days?  I can't find them anywhere...  :-(

>For that matter, how about nuke-free bananas?  

>(Bananas contain potassium, and potassium is one of many elements which,
>in the naturally occurring mixture of isotopes, are slightly radioactive.
>People have never lived in a radiation-free environment.)
>--

Come on now ... the radiation from the foundation of the house is way
worse for you than the bananas. So is the radiation from the other 
people in the house ... I'ld like to suggest that the radiation-phobes
move to a deserted island and eat only naturally grown grain, but both
the air they will be breathing and the grain will still contain 
radioactive isotopes ... Better luck next life.

Back on topic ... if it makes you feel better, I think that some
companies used to make smoke detectors that electrically ionized the
sample instead of using a nuke-source. You may want to check the ol'
Comsumer Reports, but I remember that they worked much worse than the
cheap, effective, ones.

Rod Rempel - rrempel@sfu.ca
Department of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University 
... if two million people do a stupid thing it's still a stupid thing.