🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug26.195222.12179@gasco.com> dlc@gasco.uucp (Darci L. Chapman  x5930) writes:
>(Michael A. Covington) writes:
>> >| Comparable sources can be found in smoke 
>> >| detectors, lantern mantels and even salt substitute.
>
>> snoopy@sopwith.uucp (Snoopy) asks:
>> >Speaking of which, where can one get smoke detectors that are
>> >nuke-free these days?  I can't find them anywhere...  :-(
>
>> >cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis) responds with:
>> 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.)
>
>So that's why it's okay to add more radiation into our environment?? Because
>we were never radiation free to begin with? Wow, the logic is stunning.

Not only is the logic stunning, the attributions are all mixed up.
I am the author of the third quote, not the first one.

As for "okay to add more radiation into our environment," MY original point,
several messages back, was that we need to inquire about the amounts of
radiation involved (apparently very tiny) and whether there are any natural
effects that would make the radioactive material pile up in any particular
place after being discarded but before its radioactivity has declined.

Whether they _add_ radiation to our immediate environment depends on whether
they are more radioactive than the available alternatives.  Apparently, the
amounts involved are very tiny.  Want to be nuke-free?  Get rid of that
polished granite tabletop... 
-- 
+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
+ VOTE NO GEORGIA LOTTERY - don't tie education to an unpredictable income.