Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!space
From: REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: absolutely vs. relatively safe level
Message-ID: <8603020307.AA00255@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 22:08:25 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8603020307.AA00255
Posted: Sat Mar  1 22:08:25 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 19:18:59 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17

BS> Date: 28 Feb 86 03:16:55 GMT
BS> From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
BS> There seems to be a lot of agreement among the medical community that
BS> there is NO SUCH THING as a safe level of exposure.

There is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of just about
anything. A single drop of water in the wrong place can short circuit
a weapon and kill someone. A more reasonable definition of safe level
than what you seem to be referring to is whatever it takes to offset
reproduction. When young people are killed off before they can
reproduce, in such numbers that the ones that remain can't reproduce
fast enough to make up for the ones that died, then we have a truly
fatal dose of whatever it is. Anything less than that is just a
painful way to slow down the population explosion. Yes, I don't want
lots and lots of that pain, but a teensy teensy bit of it is nothing
compared to the many other hazards we face today and not worth all
this absolutist nonsense such as the NO SAFE LEVEL you claim.