“Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.”
We are in agreement that the radiation poses more of a risk than what we are being told, but the “Physicians for Social Responsibility” sounds like a liberal group.
I don’t know who to trust.
Physicians for Social Responsibility are hardly experts in this matter. They are a die-hard liberal activist group.
Best group to go to used to be the Health Physics Society, but I’m not sure of their reliability lately (have been out of the field for some time).
No, "they are NOT correct". We need some radiation. Our main source of radiation is the sun, and we need the radiation from it to stay warm and grow crops. When exposed directly to sunlight our bodies create Vitamin D and some other needed chemical compounds.
X-Rays are used to precisely locate and plan the treatment of dental cavities, to identify trauma, cancers, and other medical problems. We minimize the dosage, but without the x-rays death rates would be higher. So too with other medical imaging using *radiation*, including injested isotopes.
Harsh radiation is used to treat cancers.
- - - - -
This article is 99% fear mongering.
It’s a Ralph Nader group.
It is.
If they are not reporting any level you can pretty much bet the EPA is hiding something.
““Many experts, ...exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.””
But there are rad sources that are natural. What we are not being told is these standards and where they rank compared to natural radiation sources. If the standards are at or below natural values they are B.S. in my book.
face it, we are simply passengers on a train and we're not the conductor....thankfully, we know who is...:)