🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <62ft2p$3u3@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>Kym Horsell (kym@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au) wrote in article <62d4qc$4c1$1@news.latrobe.edu.au> 
> Lots of irrrelevant horseshit from Horsell snipped.
>]>I've read about nuclear complex worker
>]> who got somewhat more then microgram quantities in his blood by pricking finger
>]> on Pu metall shaving. He seems to be fine a couple decades later. But I
>]> guess he'll die eventually, thus vindicating the position that Pu is
>]> "the deadliest poison known."
>]You're shifting ground, again. ;-)
>]By co-incidence, I've heard that some heavy smokers didn't die of 
>]lung cancer. 
> Then it follows then cigarette smoke is not "the deadliest poison known."
> Similarly, since people exposed to far greater quanitities of plutonium
> then Horsell's alleged lethal dose are feeling fine decades later, plutonium
> is not "the deadliest poison known." Q.E.D.

Again, shifting ground.  Again, straw man. 

It would seem to be primarily YOU that might believe "cigarettes" or 
"plutonium" are even CONTENDERS for "the deadliest poison known".

Perhaps, review the previously-posted material where I've
explicitly  pointed out
(a) (even) if you accept the LD50 of (some) Pu oxide at 1000 days is of the 
order of 10-100 micrograms (mammal), then I've said some TOXINS are believed 
fatal at NANOgrams (e.g. a single animal of an appropriately-virulent 
disease strain) -- and hence "somewhat" more toxic than I've indicated
Pu may be. 
(b) it's continuing (hillbilly) silliness to compare inorganic and 
(this time, the "argument" shifts to a MIXTURE of 1000s of) organic compounds.

[OCT23.3]