General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays

Started by Ilena · · Last activity · 79 posts · 1,672 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 January 2004
Last activity
6 February 2004
Original author
Ilena
Posts
79
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,672
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 79
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
    30 January 2004

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=486000

    Radiation from X-rays in dentist surgeries and hospitals causes 700
    people in Britain to develop cancer each year, researchers say today.

    Although medical X-rays help diagnose disease, they have long been
    known to cause a small increase in the risk of cancer because of the
    radiation they emit.

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the
    public is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and
    discharges from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that
    figure, and most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from
    granite rocks.

    Researchers from Oxford University and Cancer Research UK estimated
    the size of the risk based on the number of X-rays carried out in
    Britain and in 14 other countries. According to their findings,
    published in the medical journal The Lancet, the results showed that
    X-rays accounted for six out of every 1,000 cases of cancer up to the
    age of 75, equivalent to 700 out of the 124,000 cases of cancer
    diagnosed each year.

    The calculations were based on the cancer rates among Japanese
    survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during
    the Second World War.

    The UK had a lower risk from medical X-rays than most of the other
    areas studied including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany,
    Australia and Japan. In Japan 30 of every 1,000 cases of cancer are
    thought to caused by X-rays.

    In the UK, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has
    monitored the doses of radiation used in X-ray examinations for more
    than a decade. Advancing technology has halved the dose used in X-ray
    examinations since the early 1990s but the board found a 20-fold
    difference between the doses delivered in different hospitals in its
    latest review.

    Concern has focused on the growing use of Computed Tomography (CT)
    scans which take a series of X-ray pictures through the body and have
    revolutionised the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases.

    But according to the NRPB a single CT scan involves a dose of
    radiation up to 1,000 times that of a chest X-ray.

    Barry Wall, head of medical dosimetry at the NRPB, said: "CT scanning
    is expanding so rapidly. The images are so fantastic that not a lot of
    attention is being paid to the doses used."

    In a commentary on the findings, two German specialists in radiology
    said that the authors did not consider the benefits of X-rays in their
    study and offset those against the risks. "Benefits include the
    earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the
    possibility of early treatment," they wrote.

    But they said up to 30 per cent of chest X-rays might not be
    necessary. They also said that unnecessary CT examinations could cause
    radiation exposure. "Those ordering radiological procedures should
    think carefully about the benefit for and the risk to their patients
    for each examination."
    30 January 2004 14:20

  2. "Ilena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
    30 January 2004

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=486000

    Radiation from X-rays in dentist surgeries and hospitals causes 700
    people in Britain to develop cancer each year, researchers say today.

    Although medical X-rays help diagnose disease, they have long been
    known to cause a small increase in the risk of cancer because of the
    radiation they emit.

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the
    public is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and
    discharges from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that
    figure, and most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from
    granite rocks.

    Researchers from Oxford University and Cancer Research UK estimated
    the size of the risk based on the number of X-rays carried out in
    Britain and in 14 other countries. According to their finding
    published in the medical journal The Lancet, the results showed that
    X-rays accounted for six out of every 1,000 cases of cancer up to the
    age of 75, equivalent to 700 out of the 124,000 cases of cancer
    diagnosed each year.

    The calculations were based on the cancer rates among Japanese
    survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during
    the Second World War.

    EOM continuing its never-ending process of self-evaluation. Good for them!!

    I don't like the number of assumptions being made here and I am sure the
    original article would have contained numerous caveats. For example we
    don't know that there is a linear association between radiation dosage and
    cancer, different tissues display different sensitivity, and isotopes
    absorbed following atomic explosions will be absorbed and have specific
    carcinogenic actions on organs such as the thyroid and bone.

    Still, it is wise for doctors to only order xrays when the information will
    significantly change treatment.

    The only connection that I can see to alternative medicine is that it is
    possible in both the USA and Russia to go and sit in radioactive mines 'for
    your health', and people are convinced it does wonders for them: numerous
    testimonials ( surprise! surprise!)

    Peter Moran

    Quoted message said:


    The UK had a lower risk from medical X-rays than most of the other
    areas studied including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany,
    Australia and Japan. In Japan 30 of every 1,000 cases of cancer are
    thought to caused by X-rays.

    In the UK, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has
    monitored the doses of radiation used in X-ray examinations for more
    than a decade. Advancing technology has halved the dose used in X-ray
    examinations since the early 1990s but the board found a 20-fold
    difference between the doses delivered in different hospitals in its
    latest review.

    Concern has focused on the growing use of Computed Tomography (CT)
    scans which take a series of X-ray pictures through the body and have
    revolutionised the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases.

    But according to the NRPB a single CT scan involves a dose of
    radiation up to 1,000 times that of a chest X-ray.

    Barry Wall, head of medical dosimetry at the NRPB, said: "CT scanning
    is expanding so rapidly. The images are so fantastic that not a lot of
    attention is being paid to the doses used."

    In a commentary on the findings, two German specialists in radiology
    said that the authors did not consider the benefits of X-rays in their
    study and offset those against the risks. "Benefits include the
    earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the
    possibility of early treatment," they wrote.

    But they said up to 30 per cent of chest X-rays might not be
    necessary. They also said that unnecessary CT examinations could cause
    radiation exposure. "Those ordering radiological procedures should
    think carefully about the benefit for and the risk to their patients
    for each examination."
    30 January 2004 14:20

  3. "Ilena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist .................

    Take the time to subscribe and read the original article.

    You will also then be able to read a commentary by Peter Herzog and
    Christina T Rieger.

    Or if you wish you can continue to subscribe to your little e-mail service
    and rely on their reviews.

    carabelli

  4. Hi Ilena!

    Back from Costa Rica?

    JOELY!!!!!

    Quoted message said:

    On 30 Jan 2004 12:26:03 -0800, [email hidden] (Ilena) wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
    30 January 2004

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=486000

    Radiation from X-rays in dentist surgeries and hospitals causes 700
    people in Britain to develop cancer each year, researchers say today.

    Although medical X-rays help diagnose disease, they have long been
    known to cause a small increase in the risk of cancer because of the
    radiation they emit.

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the
    public is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and
    discharges from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that
    figure, and most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from
    granite rocks.

    Researchers from Oxford University and Cancer Research UK estimated
    the size of the risk based on the number of X-rays carried out in
    Britain and in 14 other countries. According to their findings,
    published in the medical journal The Lancet, the results showed that
    X-rays accounted for six out of every 1,000 cases of cancer up to the
    age of 75, equivalent to 700 out of the 124,000 cases of cancer
    diagnosed each year.

    The calculations were based on the cancer rates among Japanese
    survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during
    the Second World War.

    The UK had a lower risk from medical X-rays than most of the other
    areas studied including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany,
    Australia and Japan. In Japan 30 of every 1,000 cases of cancer are
    thought to caused by X-rays.

    In the UK, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has
    monitored the doses of radiation used in X-ray examinations for more
    than a decade. Advancing technology has halved the dose used in X-ray
    examinations since the early 1990s but the board found a 20-fold
    difference between the doses delivered in different hospitals in its
    latest review.

    Concern has focused on the growing use of Computed Tomography (CT)
    scans which take a series of X-ray pictures through the body and have
    revolutionised the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases.

    But according to the NRPB a single CT scan involves a dose of
    radiation up to 1,000 times that of a chest X-ray.

    Barry Wall, head of medical dosimetry at the NRPB, said: "CT scanning
    is expanding so rapidly. The images are so fantastic that not a lot of
    attention is being paid to the doses used."

    In a commentary on the findings, two German specialists in radiology
    said that the authors did not consider the benefits of X-rays in their
    study and offset those against the risks. "Benefits include the
    earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the
    possibility of early treatment," they wrote.

    But they said up to 30 per cent of chest X-rays might not be
    necessary. They also said that unnecessary CT examinations could cause
    radiation exposure. "Those ordering radiological procedures should
    think carefully about the benefit for and the risk to their patients
    for each examination."
    30 January 2004 14:20

    --
    Joel M. Eichen, .
    Philadelphia PA

    DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:

    *********

    Dental health-related material
    is provided for information purposes
    only and does not necessarily
    represent endorsement by or an official
    position of the SciMedDentistry gang
    or any other official agency either
    actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.

    Advice on the treatment or care
    of an individual patient should
    be obtained through consultation
    with a dentist who has examined
    that patient or is familiar with
    that patient's dental history.

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER

  5. More importantly, are there any tax-exempt organizations in San Diego
    where we can send contributions ......?

    JOELY

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:56:17 GMT, "carabelli" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:


    "Ilena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist .................

    Take the time to subscribe and read the original article.

    You will also then be able to read a commentary by Peter Herzog and
    Christina T Rieger.

    Or if you wish you can continue to subscribe to your little e-mail service
    and rely on their reviews.

    carabelli

    --
    Joel M. Eichen, .
    Philadelphia PA

    DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:

    *********

    Dental health-related material
    is provided for information purposes
    only and does not necessarily
    represent endorsement by or an official
    position of the SciMedDentistry gang
    or any other official agency either
    actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.

    Advice on the treatment or care
    of an individual patient should
    be obtained through consultation
    with a dentist who has examined
    that patient or is familiar with
    that patient's dental history.

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER

  6. "Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    More importantly, are there any tax-exempt organizations in San Diego
    where we can send contributions ......?

    I don't know about that 4/15 is approaching - will they accept coupons?

    carabelli

  7. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    From: [email hidden] (Ilena)
    Date: 1/30/2004 12:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
    30 January 2004

    I didn't realize it was that bad, HOWEVER this twice a year stuff is just a
    money maker.

    EVERYONE has the right to tell their dentists they only want x-rays. say once
    every two years.

    Jan

    Ignore David Wright, who will call names, as usual.

    Quoted message said:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=486000

    Radiation from X-rays in dentist surgeries and hospitals causes 700
    people in Britain to develop cancer each year, researchers say today.

    Although medical X-rays help diagnose disease, they have long been
    known to cause a small increase in the risk of cancer because of the
    radiation they emit.

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the
    public is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and
    discharges from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that
    figure, and most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from
    granite rocks.

    Researchers from Oxford University and Cancer Research UK estimated
    the size of the risk based on the number of X-rays carried out in
    Britain and in 14 other countries. According to their findings,
    published in the medical journal The Lancet, the results showed that
    X-rays accounted for six out of every 1,000 cases of cancer up to the
    age of 75, equivalent to 700 out of the 124,000 cases of cancer
    diagnosed each year.

    The calculations were based on the cancer rates among Japanese
    survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during
    the Second World War.

    The UK had a lower risk from medical X-rays than most of the other
    areas studied including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany,
    Australia and Japan. In Japan 30 of every 1,000 cases of cancer are
    thought to caused by X-rays.

    In the UK, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has
    monitored the doses of radiation used in X-ray examinations for more
    than a decade. Advancing technology has halved the dose used in X-ray
    examinations since the early 1990s but the board found a 20-fold
    difference between the doses delivered in different hospitals in its
    latest review.

    Concern has focused on the growing use of Computed Tomography (CT)
    scans which take a series of X-ray pictures through the body and have
    revolutionised the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases.

    But according to the NRPB a single CT scan involves a dose of
    radiation up to 1,000 times that of a chest X-ray.

    Barry Wall, head of medical dosimetry at the NRPB, said: "CT scanning
    is expanding so rapidly. The images are so fantastic that not a lot of
    attention is being paid to the doses used."

    In a commentary on the findings, two German specialists in radiology
    said that the authors did not consider the benefits of X-rays in their
    study and offset those against the risks. "Benefits include the
    earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the
    possibility of early treatment," they wrote.

    But they said up to 30 per cent of chest X-rays might not be
    necessary. They also said that unnecessary CT examinations could cause
    radiation exposure. "Those ordering radiological procedures should
    think carefully about the benefit for and the risk to their patients
    for each examination."
    30 January 2004 14:20

  8. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
    Date: 1/30/2004 12:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id:
    <[email hidden]>

    "Ilena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
    30 January 2004

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=486000

    Radiation from X-rays in dentist surgeries and hospitals causes 700
    people in Britain to develop cancer each year, researchers say today.

    Although medical X-rays help diagnose disease, they have long been
    known to cause a small increase in the risk of cancer because of the
    radiation they emit.

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the
    public is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and
    discharges from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that
    figure, and most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from
    granite rocks.

    Researchers from Oxford University and Cancer Research UK estimated
    the size of the risk based on the number of X-rays carried out in
    Britain and in 14 other countries. According to their finding
    published in the medical journal The Lancet, the results showed that
    X-rays accounted for six out of every 1,000 cases of cancer up to the
    age of 75, equivalent to 700 out of the 124,000 cases of cancer
    diagnosed each year.

    The calculations were based on the cancer rates among Japanese
    survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during
    the Second World War.

    EOM continuing its never-ending process of self-evaluation. Good for them!!

    YEAH!!! THIS NEVER ENDING SELF-EVALUATION,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,has finally been
    FORCED to take a second look.

    Where were all the wonderful EOM dentists who did this x-raying twice a year,
    and KNEW it was not necessary???

    Let's all give them a hand!!!!!!

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    The only connection that I can see to alternative medicine

    ZZzz.

    X-rays causing cancer and the over use of them is appropriate for ANY HEALTH
    NEWSGROUP.

    That buzz expression and excuse falls flat.

    Where was this *never-ending* process of self elevation when Jesse Gelsinger
    DIED, and the doctor remains on staff???

    Do show us this never ending process, and how it has improved things.

    Can't?

    That's what I though, so all can chalk up this statement from Peter Moran as a
    LIE!!!

    Now we can all throw a party that EOM has been forced and backed into a corner,
    but don't tell, we'll celebrate it as they have made a great discovery.

    One that should have been made some 50 years ago.

    Poor poor pathetic, Peter Moran.

    Jan

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. said:

    Hi Ilena!

    Back from Costa Rica?

    Actually, from her NNTP Posting Host (which resolves to
    cce02.racsa.co.cr), it looks like she's still there.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

  10. Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Hi Ilena!

    Back from Costa Rica?

    JOELY!!!!!

    Nope honey ...

    I did totally beat your buddy Barrett and his Malicious Prosecutor
    Grell ... both in Superior and the California Court of Appeals tho ...

    wwww.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm

    Be a good boy now Joelly ...

    Love, Ilena

    www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

    What did you think about the article I posted, Joelly?

  11. "Ilena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Hi Ilena!

    Back from Costa Rica?

    JOELY!!!!!

    Nope honey ...

    I did totally beat your buddy Barrett and his Malicious Prosecutor
    Grell ... both in Superior and the California Court of Appeals tho ...

    California Courts are a little bit looney.

  12. Ilena said:

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays

    Quoted message said:

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the public
    is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and discharges
    from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that figure, and
    most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from granite rocks.

    So what you are saying is that 86% of my radiation exposure is "all
    natural"? Is that good or bad? I never know.

    It sounds like I should hide at the dentist's office to avoid the cancer
    risk of my kitchen countertop.

  13. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    From: Jojo [email hidden]
    Date: 1/30/2004 8:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Ilena said:

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays

    Quoted message said:

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the public
    is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and discharges
    from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that figure, and
    most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from granite rocks.

    So what you are saying is that 86% of my radiation exposure is "all
    natural"? Is that good or bad? I never know.

    It sounds like I should hide at the dentist's office to avoid the cancer
    risk of my kitchen countertop.

    Clean out your ears.

    The sounds you are getting are mighty strange.

    If you want more and more x-rays, it's your body, OMMV.

    You might try reading it again.

    Jan

    Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
    30 January 2004

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=486000

    Radiation from X-rays in dentist surgeries and hospitals causes 700
    people in Britain to develop cancer each year, researchers say today.

    Although medical X-rays help diagnose disease, they have long been
    known to cause a small increase in the risk of cancer because of the
    radiation they emit.

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the
    public is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and
    discharges from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that
    figure, and most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from
    granite rocks.

    Researchers from Oxford University and Cancer Research UK estimated
    the size of the risk based on the number of X-rays carried out in
    Britain and in 14 other countries. According to their findings,
    published in the medical journal The Lancet, the results showed that
    X-rays accounted for six out of every 1,000 cases of cancer up to the
    age of 75, equivalent to 700 out of the 124,000 cases of cancer
    diagnosed each year.

    The calculations were based on the cancer rates among Japanese
    survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during
    the Second World War.

    The UK had a lower risk from medical X-rays than most of the other
    areas studied including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany,
    Australia and Japan. In Japan 30 of every 1,000 cases of cancer are
    thought to caused by X-rays.

    In the UK, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has
    monitored the doses of radiation used in X-ray examinations for more
    than a decade. Advancing technology has halved the dose used in X-ray
    examinations since the early 1990s but the board found a 20-fold
    difference between the doses delivered in different hospitals in its
    latest review.

    Concern has focused on the growing use of Computed Tomography (CT)
    scans which take a series of X-ray pictures through the body and have
    revolutionised the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases.

    But according to the NRPB a single CT scan involves a dose of
    radiation up to 1,000 times that of a chest X-ray.

    Barry Wall, head of medical dosimetry at the NRPB, said: "CT scanning
    is expanding so rapidly. The images are so fantastic that not a lot of
    attention is being paid to the doses used."

    In a commentary on the findings, two German specialists in radiology
    said that the authors did not consider the benefits of X-rays in their
    study and offset those against the risks. "Benefits include the
    earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the
    possibility of early treatment," they wrote.

    But they said up to 30 per cent of chest X-rays might not be
    necessary. They also said that unnecessary CT examinations could cause
    radiation exposure. "Those ordering radiological procedures should
    think carefully about the benefit for and the risk to their patients
    for each examination."
    30 January 2004 14:20

  14. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Hundreds of cancer cases blamed on dentist x-rays
    From: Jojo [email hidden]
    Date: 1/30/2004 8:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Hello Joel,

    Goodbye Joel.

    Jan

  15. Ilena Rose got slammed before for her tax-exempt organization that is
    heavy on collecting funds and very light on dispensing funds. I was
    wondering if she has another ......

    Joely

    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:29:53 GMT, "carabelli" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:


    "Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    More importantly, are there any tax-exempt organizations in San Diego
    where we can send contributions ......?

    I don't know about that 4/15 is approaching - will they accept coupons?

    carabelli

    --
    Joel M. Eichen, .
    Philadelphia PA

    DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:

    *********

    Dental health-related material
    is provided for information purposes
    only and does not necessarily
    represent endorsement by or an official
    position of the SciMedDentistry gang
    or any other official agency either
    actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.

    Advice on the treatment or care
    of an individual patient should
    be obtained through consultation
    with a dentist who has examined
    that patient or is familiar with
    that patient's dental history.

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER

  16. Hi Orac,

    Then I guess Costa Rica has not arranged extradition yet!

    Joely

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:54:20 GMT, Orac <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. said:

    Hi Ilena!

    Back from Costa Rica?

    Actually, from her NNTP Posting Host (which resolves to
    cce02.racsa.co.cr), it looks like she's still there.

    --
    Joel M. Eichen, .
    Philadelphia PA

    DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:

    *********

    Dental health-related material
    is provided for information purposes
    only and does not necessarily
    represent endorsement by or an official
    position of the SciMedDentistry gang
    or any other official agency either
    actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.

    Advice on the treatment or care
    of an individual patient should
    be obtained through consultation
    with a dentist who has examined
    that patient or is familiar with
    that patient's dental history.

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER

  17. I heard you left the country to remain judgement-proof. Is that in
    error?

    Joely

    Quoted message said:

    On 30 Jan 2004 19:14:24 -0800, [email hidden] (Ilena) wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Hi Ilena!

    Back from Costa Rica?

    JOELY!!!!!

    Nope honey ...

    I did totally beat your buddy Barrett and his Malicious Prosecutor
    Grell ... both in Superior and the California Court of Appeals tho ...

    wwww.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm

    Be a good boy now Joelly ...

    Love, Ilena

    www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

    What did you think about the article I posted, Joelly?

    --
    Joel M. Eichen, .
    Philadelphia PA

    DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:

    *********

    Dental health-related material
    is provided for information purposes
    only and does not necessarily
    represent endorsement by or an official
    position of the SciMedDentistry gang
    or any other official agency either
    actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.

    Advice on the treatment or care
    of an individual patient should
    be obtained through consultation
    with a dentist who has examined
    that patient or is familiar with
    that patient's dental history.

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER

  18. Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: Jojo [email hidden]

    Ilena said:

    X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the public
    is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and discharges
    from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that figure, and
    most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from granite rocks.

    So what you are saying is that 86% of my radiation exposure is "all
    natural"? Is that good or bad? I never know.

    It sounds like I should hide at the dentist's office to avoid the cancer
    risk of my kitchen countertop.

    Clean out your ears.

    The sounds you are getting are mighty strange.

    If you want more and more x-rays, it's your body, OMMV.

    You might try reading it again.

    Hmmm, I did, but I still see it saying that 86% of my radiation exposure
    comes from natural sources. Am I wrong?

    --

  19. Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: Jojo [email hidden]


    Hello Joel,

    Goodbye Joel.

    Que? Sorry, my name's not "Joel". It's not even Jojo or Joe.

  20. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Jojo said:
    Jan said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: Jojo [email hidden]
    On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:03 -0800, Ilena wrote:
    > X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which the public
    > is exposed, accounting for 14 per cent. Atomic testing and discharges
    > from nuclear power stations account for a fraction of that figure, and
    > most of the rest is natural radiation such as radon from granite rocks.

    So what you are saying is that 86% of my radiation exposure is "all
    natural"? Is that good or bad? I never know.

    It sounds like I should hide at the dentist's office to avoid the cancer
    risk of my kitchen countertop.

    Clean out your ears.

    The sounds you are getting are mighty strange.

    If you want more and more x-rays, it's your body, OMMV.

    You might try reading it again.

    Hmmm, I did, but I still see it saying that 86% of my radiation exposure
    comes from natural sources. Am I wrong?

    Nope.

    See:

    http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/pdf/ymp0337rev1.pdf
    http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/sources.html

    These cite approximately 81-85% of exposure as coming from natural
    sources and only 15% of radiation exposure as coming from medical
    sources. Of course, no doubt Jan will not believe these sources, as they
    are from the government, specifically the U.S. Department of Energy and
    the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    For her:

    http://greennature.com/article272.html

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
    | inconvenience me with questions?"

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.