Spare me your outrage. You used deliberately vague language to make a dangerous procedure used only in cases of pressing need sound like something safe and routine. This is playground lawyer stuff. You're not fooling anyone.
> Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact.
No, now you're straight-up lying again. Norwegian exposure was double that of a dangerous and uncommon medical procedure.
And then you're completely ignoring my point about the Castle Bravo disaster and cover-up, and deploying argument-by-distraction. (Car crash deaths are bad! Therefore, cancer deaths don't matter!)
Let's get back to the original point. You said: "follow on health effects from nuclear testing on the continental USA are negligible. You're more at risk getting an x-ray at the dentists office." I clearly can't trust your unsourced statements on this subject, so I really would like to see a credible source, please.
> Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact.
No, now you're straight-up lying again. Norwegian exposure was double that of a dangerous and uncommon medical procedure.
And then you're completely ignoring my point about the Castle Bravo disaster and cover-up, and deploying argument-by-distraction. (Car crash deaths are bad! Therefore, cancer deaths don't matter!)
Let's get back to the original point. You said: "follow on health effects from nuclear testing on the continental USA are negligible. You're more at risk getting an x-ray at the dentists office." I clearly can't trust your unsourced statements on this subject, so I really would like to see a credible source, please.