🚀 go-pugleaf

af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:

>(Hans Pedersen Dambo) wrote:
>: But the important thing is that those Rn-222 atoms that stay in the
>: lungs will decay to radon daughters and the number of decays from the
>: chain of radon daughters will be several times higher and also
>: irradiate the during a longer period.

>  This is an acceptable statement.  If you retract the statement that
>  "radon does not cause cancer", we can end this thread.

You are in no position to end the communication between Josh Halpern
and me.
Neither do I think that I am the one who should make the retractions.
Try reading Kenny Gross' excellent posting and learn from that.
Then you could consider retracting or adjusting some of your own
postings.
------------------------
Scott Nudds: "Radon gas for example, appears to be a major source of
lung cancer."

Scott Nudds: "Radon's daughers are solids and tend to collect on dust
particles.  I don't know if this makes them any more of a radiation
threat.  I suppose it depends on the nature of the exposure. "
--------------------------

Hans Pedersen Dambo