🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <620qeg$oel@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
> Tell that to mr. Kym, please. 

Ah. Historically, people that jump to conclusions about my gender 
and/or title "may not be capable of careful thought". 
(Generally that doesn't need to be pointed out, but I do it anyway).  ;-)

>It was he who insists that a few
> micrograms of Pu is enough to die "from associated effects eventually."

Poor straw man construction.
Actually, it is not my research that I cited. And it's a "careless"
or (more probably) deceptive person that tries to equate "50"  with "a few".

> I wonder how "eventually" this is. 

Obviously I'm not speaking to anyone with a medical bg, here. 
Engineer of some kind, if I'm lucky, right? ;-)

And why does the (naively presumed, I gather, "constant") length of time 
matter? Epidemiological research into mortality wrt to exposure
to materials  is -- believe it or not -- based on analysing the cause of death. 
It's generally not the practice to include specific references to the 
time-between-exposure-and-death in the sample.

You'll note  that many of the papers under my Web pages (by no means all,
of course, mine) are based on analysing death certificates of 
different groups of people, and determining whether there were 
"excess deaths" due to such-and-such-causes.  This is done for all sorts
 of reasons. It is generally an accepted practice, but seems to be questioned 
by mech eng students, physicists, and hillbillies  when it's 
apparently related to an "invisible agent" that they can't see, hear or 
smell, or for a cause of death that's protracted and/or regarded by
them as "common" anyway. (These last couple are generally the province of 
YOUNG hillbillies, who have an immature view of the relevance or 
inevitibility of their own mortality) ;-) 
(And another interesting psychological footnote: some will note the
aforementioned "fear of the invisible" is sometime projected onto others ;-).

As an example: since around 20-25% of a given sample of C20 westerners die from some 
form of cancer, if you have a group of say 1000 people (well, corpses, really) 
where 30% are deemed to have died from cancer, there is "something unusual 
present".

While young Republicans and their grand-daddy Right Wing Intellectuals 
[wiping spittle off corner of mouth] like to sit around cozy fires 
chug-a-lugging [brand name witheld] and writing tomes on how "liberals" 
would like the world to have rounded corners when REALLY and
RIGHTFULLY it's law of the jungle that's responsible for the rise of 
civilisation, I gather the REST of us understand it's rounded corners 
such as cozy fires that ARE civilization.

But now, *I* digress...

>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. 

So you've managed to dig down deep and cite an instance 
(other, more general, instances including: X does not exist; X is impossible; 
X is not dangerous), why "proving a negative" is generally frowned on 
as a useful occupation -- in _some_ scientific circles, anyway  -- 
especially when the associated "proof" that's trotted out is a sample 
(most typically, one or two) of hand-crafted cases where the posited 
phenomenon was NOT observed.

(To send some of your own, back). ;-)
The tobacco industry has been pretty good at the same tactic,
until recently as we know, denying even the _possibility_ of a link
between (apparently) "any" of the substances in tobacco smoke and
(apparently) "any" form of tumorgensis and despite what others could show 
with reasonable statistical accuracy for decades, using both epidemiological 
survey and lab biochemistry. 
("It's only statistics, son. And statistics lie.  [phwet]").

As for your latest diversion -- claims about "the deadliest poison known" -- 
you need more lessons in straw man construction, so as not to be so obvious. 

I don't _recall_ anyone saying that recently (except those trying to argue 
radioactive substances are "chemically safer than 
[insert name of favourite toxin here]. As most people realise toxins are 
"more deadly" (e.g. lower dose at given mortality) than simple elements or 
inorganic compounds. As you'll find if you continue your research, some 
single-celled creates can cause human mortality (at rather low rates -- 5-10%) 
via the introduction of a single organism -- massing in the nanograms 
(per std 70 kg person). 

If anyone has been comparing that kind of thing with Pu on these groups, 
please post a quote and I'll add it to my collection. ;-)