karensmansker on lung cancer

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by karenmansker, Mar 24, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,979
    Kinda too late for that!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    UOTE="DaveC426913, post: 3445724, member: 19467"]There is no use of the word 'rule' in post 29. You misquote me. You do not post in good faith.

    I was pretty specific about it being a convention.

    You learn conventions by hanging round a place long enough to see how things are done. How to communicate with your audience.

    That is, if you don't want people challenging the things you say. If you do, on the other hand, feel free to ignore any and all conventions as you see fit. There's a catch though. You forfeit the right to complain about it when people challenge you.


    But if it's rules you want, they are here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

    (Notice how I provided context for the link there? See how unconfusing that is?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    [/QUOTE]
    Dave: Just to complete our recent discussions. Thanks for the referral to Sciforums 'rules'. However, I found nothing in said rules to indicate the 'convention' regarding the proper order of posting and referencing links to articles/documents, that you specified. Please provide factual foundations for your claim regarding 'convention', or it could appear to readers that you have misrepresented your comments regarding specification of such 'convention' on Sciforums and on other forums. Regards!
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    How is this hypothetical?
    Why the scare-quotes? The World Health Organization estimates that radon causes between 3% and 14% of lung cancers worldwide, so how is this "very probable" when cigarettes cause 7-30 times more cancers? It's naturally occurring, but it is not a well-mixed gas since it is found it much higher concentrations in some buildings than outside. Wouldn't the risk of radon-attributed lung cancer be tied to the highly variable exposures in homes and workplaces, so wouldn't the risk be highly variable?
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs291/en/
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np15/en/
    Under what conditions does Uranium not produce radon? Thorium is also a parent of a decay series that produces Radon.
    That's not highly-charged, that's highly energetic. And unlike beta radiation, the alpha radiation from a particular isotope will have a distinctive kinetic energy. For Radon-222, the most common isotope, this is about 5.59 MeV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#Uranium_series
    Untrue. Alpha particles, once their momentum is discharged from collisions with air or solid matter, pick up two electrons and continue as completely inert helium atoms. For alpha particles of about 5.59 MeV, 5-6 mg/cm² of low-density material (1 sheet of copier paper, 4 cm of air, 50 µm of skin) will block the alpha particle. http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/α-β-γ-penetration-and-shielding
    So the only plausible risk of direct radon alpha-particle lung cancer is from inhalation.
    None of that is true. Alpha particles don't exhibit any of these behaviors.

    Radon is more dangerous to smokers than non-smokers, with any synergistic effects for second-hand smokers probably weaker than for smokers.

    https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon

    Well, that's just stupid, because the leftovers from the alpha decay is a radioactive atom of ionized polonium which, regardless of it or its daughters being 'plated' on to dust, poses an ongoing health risk, especially in the lungs.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Rpenner: Thanks for adding useful information to my commentary that will surely benefit Sciforums readers! I don't want to nit-pick your commentary, but portions of it appear to be your opinions not based on factual foundations. So, rather than start another 'pissing match' regarding comments, claims, opinions, conventions, facts, hypotheses, etc. which serve no constructive purpose, I'll defer to your's for the final argumentative comment. Warm regards, KSM (HSIRI)
     
  8. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,104
    but I will anyway...

    Please define "your's" - is that like et. al?
     
  9. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Yep! . . . those pesky little apostrophes can be very sneaky in that regard! No, for your enlightenment, it is NOT like et. al, 'at all' (HA!). I certainly hope it (the apostrophe) did not interfere with your comprehension . . . . . my definition? . . . . same as 'yours' (HAHAHA!) Now, perhaps we can get back to the OP discussion. (HSIRI)
     
  10. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    It wasn't commentary, it was misinformation with the trappings of scientific medical advice and therefore malicious pseudo-science. [Mod Note: This is considered this your second official warning under that policy, karenmansker.]

    That's an intellectually dishonest way to cast aspersions. Where is a specific, concrete question asked or claim raised? It's also an intellectually dishonest evasion of the questions I asked.

    Showing that your statements are baseless and wrong is NEVER without constructive purpose. The constructive purpose is your education towards being a useful and reliable source of information. Your cooperation in that enterprise is appreciated.

    "Hail Satan, Imperial Reign Infernal"? "Hostage Seen Inquiring of Republican Idiot?" Well, whatever. At least you aren't claiming scientific authority in some applicable field.
     
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Rpen: Can you advise me who the Mod is posted the red text? I would like to respond to them. Thanks!
     
  12. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That would be me.
    ↙︎ "Staff Member" would be a clue.
    Bells has a marker just like it.
     
  13. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Expanded commentary of KSM in response to Rpenner Sciforums queries:

    How is this hypothetical? Because it is not theoretical and is based on observations of mine (and others) and reasonable interpretations
    Why the scare-quotes? NOT scare quotes, used to simply emphasize the word 'cause' – personal preference.The World Health Organization estimates that radon causes between 3% and 14% of lung cancers worldwide, so how is this "very probable" when cigarettes cause 7-30 times more cancers? Most knowledgeable persons who are aware of the radon issue agree that it is a ‘cause’ of some (not most) lung cancers. I interpret therefore that radon is a very probable cause of (some, not most) lung cancers. Do you consider that it (radon) is not a cause? It's naturally occurring, but it is not a well-mixed gas since it is found it much higher concentrations in some buildings than outside. Often true. Radon is typically found in higher concentrations INSIDE buildings rather than OUTSIDE primarily because infiltrating radon is relatively confined/trapped by particular building structural designs and ventilation is restricted (for the most part – e.g., during winter months). Ambient outside radon levels are also variable depending upon geological factors (e.g., rock type, rock properties (fractures, permeabilities), groundwater levels, etc.). Wouldn't the risk of radon-attributed lung cancer be tied to the highly variable exposures in homes and workplaces, so wouldn't the risk be highly variable? Yes, the risk IS highly variable depending basically on extant radon levels (in homes and workplaces) and duration of exposure (long-term or short-term) – cumulative risk increases collaterally with these exposure factors . Exposure risks (levels and duration of exposure) are also dependent very much on geological subsurface source levels, soil permeability, construction design (and flaws, such as foundation curing cracks (mostly), degree of building ventilation (i.e., exchanges with outside air, per hour), local meteorological conditions. Wind tends to create negative pressures within buildings that will increase soil gas influx). Regional meteorological conditions also affect soil gas (and radon) flow. Diurnal heating/cooling effects tend to ‘pump’ soil gases from depths of ~ 3 -4 ft below ground surface. So, YES, there are many variable to consider contributing to radon levels.
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs291/en/
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np15/en/
    Under what conditions does Uranium not produce radon? None, as far as I know – don’t know for sure about depleted Uranium (but it makes great armor-piercing projectiles!) . Thorium is also a parent of a decay series that produces Radon. True, different decay series, half-lives, etc. Primary natural Radium compounds (e.g., evaporitic salts, oilfield brines, ocean water) are also sources of Radon.
    That's not highly-charged, that's highly energetic. Charge of an energetic alpha particle is +2 (needs 2 electrons to neutralize as a helium atom. The electrical/static (kinetic) POTENTIAL is ~3-7 (range) MeV. And unlike beta radiation, the alpha radiation from a particular isotope will have a distinctive kinetic energy. For Radon-222, the most common isotope, this is about 5.59 MeV. Agree
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#Uranium_series
    Untrue. Alpha particles, once their momentum is discharged from collisions with air or solid matter, pick up two electrons and continue as completely inert helium atoms. For alpha particles of about 5.59 MeV, 5-6 mg/cm² of low-density material (1 sheet of copier paper, 4 cm of air, 50 µm of skin) will block the alpha particle. My commentary intent was to convey that both Radon and energized alpha particles have a high potential for mutagenic interaction with tissues. Radon, if inhaled, may attach to mucosa and subsequently decay, forming a highly-energetic alpha particle that can then penetrate surface bronchial or alveolar tissues . It is my pet supposition/hypothesis (not a fact, not a theory, but an opinionated “claim”!) that the resulting mutagenic effects break hydrogen bonds in tissue DNA/RNA, because the nucleotides are secured within the molecules by (very weak) hydrogen bonds. Affected nucleotide affiliations then may erroneously recombine initiating cancerous growth. (http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/α-β-γ-penetration-and-shielding
    So the only plausible risk of direct radon alpha-particle lung cancer is from inhalation.
    None of that is true. Alpha particles don't exhibit any of these behaviors. (Your opinion?. See above discussions)

    Radon is more dangerous to smokers than non-smokers, with any synergistic effects for second-hand smokers probably weaker than for smokers. The primary reason for THAT is radon adsorbs onto to air and moisture molecules (and dust and smoke particles) that are subsequently inhaled by BOTH smokers and non-smokers (second-hand!) who may be sharing the Radon (and alpha-particle) exposure risks.
    https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon

    Well, that's just stupid (YOUR opinion!), because the leftovers from the alpha decay is a radioactive atom of ionized polonium which, regardless of it or its daughters being 'plated' on to dust, posed an ongoing health risk, especially in the lungs.

    Lead (Pb) (a toxic daughter product) is the final destination state for each of the decay series show below. Pb can easily accumulate under appropriate geological conditions and can present in trace concentrations as a result of long duration Radon exposure (IMO!)

    Following background information from Wiki source. Emphasis KSM:

    (Radon, sic) “It is a radioactive, colorless, odorless, tasteless noble gas. It occurs naturally as an intermediate step in the normal radioactive decay chains through which thorium and uranium slowly decay into lead; radon, itself, is a decay product of radium. Its most stable isotope, 222Rn, has a half-life of 3.8 days.”
    (and) “The three naturally-occurring actinide alpha decay chains given below—thorium, uranium/radium (from U-238), and actinium (from U-235)—each ends with its own specific lead isotope (Pb-208, Pb-206, and Pb-207 respectively)”.

    BTW: Rpenner, in response to the Mod warning your reply above, please point-out anywhere I made ANY reference to medical treatment prosthlytization in my posts!
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,979
    Happy to discuss conventions versus rules with you in the appropriate thread. This one is about lung cancer.
     
  15. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,104
    I'm not following - what is this even supposed to mean?
     
  16. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Whatever . . . . . you provided no factual back up for your comments on 'convention', as I requested . . . . start another appropriate thread, if you are so inclined! I agree, this crap is really off topic!!!
     
  17. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Randwolf: It should have nothing to do with you. It is an issue between me and Mods/Rpenner regarding the content of my posts in this thread. IMO, don't worry yourself silly about it!!
     
  18. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,104
    I'm pretty sure you posted this in open forum - so I can worry myself about it all I want. Perhaps you meant to PM rpenner instead? Are you technically challenged in that regard? I would be happy to explain and assist if you like.

    So, once again... What does "ANY reference to medical treatment prosthlytization" mean? It's not a trick question - you wrote it, what does it mean?
     
  19. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    OK, then . . . . since you insist . . . . it is a riddle I designed and concocted just for you to figure out! To paraphrase you: "worry about it all you want!!" HAHAHA! (HSIRI)
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,979
    What you agreed to was to not derail this thread further.
    Post 43:
    Don't add hypocrite to your list.
     
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,104
    Well then... Posting in good faith I see. Let's watch how this turns out - I'm off to get the popcorn.
     
  22. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Electrical potential is measured in volts. Electrical field strength is measured in volts per meter or in atomic-size units just a few tens of eV per Bohr radius per elementary charge, Alpha particles do their damage by using that electrostatic force to convey their momentum and kinetic energy to the material they traverse through. No kinetic energy, no danger.

    Radon, being a noble gas, doesn't have an affinity for human tissue and surfaces the way, say, its daughter products have.
    Pet theories are not allowed on the main science forum. You have been directed to our policy on that previously. The order of nucleotides in DNA is actually covalently bonded. It is the complementary strands which are hydrogen bonded to each other. Regardless, 10 eV and up is more than enough to induce covalent chemical changes, but you don't know enough biochemistry to make the claims you do.

    Obviously, I know a lot more about biochemistry, nuclear chemistry and the physics of ionizing radiation than you. I think at a minimum you have confused alpha particles with alpha particle emitters.

    Radon, being a noble gas, doesn't have an affinity to dust and smoke particles, let alone air and moisture molecules. I think at a minimum you have confused the Radon atom with its daughter products.

    But an opinion formed from your posts and attached to a chain of reasoning. If you don't want me to call your claims stupid, stop making stupid claims.

    Well that seems idiotic since it takes on the average 32 years for an atom of Radon-222 to transmute to an atom of Lead-206 and the OSHA limit for lead exposure in air is 30 µg/m³ which is 1.46 × 10^17 atoms/m³ which if those atoms were Radon-222 would mean an activity of 3 × 10^11 Bq which is 30,000 times that found in unventilated Uranium mines. There is no reasoning or support for your that the main danger of Radon exposure is lead poisoning.
    https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/limits.html
    https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/lead-trends

    For what purpose did you quote from (but improperly cite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain ? I already cited the later when sourcing the energy of the Radon-222 alpha particle at 5.59 MeV, a quantity I didn't just happen to remember. With a little math, it's also where I got the figure for 32 years above.

    Did you read the warning?
    We are talking about human lung cancer. You introduce pet theories which are nothing more than misinformation from someone incompetent to talk about DNA chemistry or ionizing radiation. This makes you a crackpot, advocating crackpottery on the main science forums. That was the subject of your pseudoscience warning. That a person might mistake your page one posts as scientific fact could lead them to make poor medical decision. But that obvious conclusion was not my main point.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  23. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    "Obviously, I know a lot more about biochemistry, nuclear chemistry and the physics of ionizing radiation than you" (Source: Rpenner previous post)

    You would hope so . . . . . 'obviously '. . . . by far a better man than I am, Gunga Din' (Source: paraphrased from Gunga Din, By R. Kipling)
     

Share This Page