Subject: Govt. still recommends anti-radiation pills
From: (GrtPmpkin32)
Date: 7/11/03 10:30 AM Central Daylight Time


Protecting my thyroid gland, and only my thyroid gland, doesn't seem like a
particularly successful or efficient means of shielding myself against
everything else high radiation can do to the entire body.
Just because the Soviets distributed nukepills to its citizenry doesn't mean
there is any good reason for having done so.
But the real point is that these things are being sold to play on fears of an
ignorant public, and there is very little science behind it to rationalize
the
cost or usefulness of them.
It is, in fact, nonsense.
Linus

Woah! Somebody **** in yer Wheaties this morning?
Take a deep breath.

You've made a number of logical errors here, if not outright fabrication.

The original claim was that there is no benefit whatsoever to potassium iodide
in the event of a nuclear contamination type event. This is demonstrably
false, in reality it is well documented and has been repeatedly shown to be the
case over a number of years. In brief, the thyroid is among the very first
and most sensitive organs affected. For this reason, it would be administered
right away, ideally prior to the event if at all possible - hence the
adviseability for each US citizen or Soviet subject to have a supply at the
ready, at home, and accessible.

Another error is assuming that no other protective measures could, or would, be
exercised in conjunction with the iodine treatment, and therefore, ergo, the
iodine is useless. While this "logic" may win you the no **** award with oak
leaf cluster, it's not one I'd want on my mantle.

That the Soviets (who were serious about "winning" a nuclear exchange during
the Cold War, by the way) issued iodine to their subjects, and our own
government stockpiled huge amounts for issue to our citizenry, illustrates and
corroborates the published medical research.

That the "The End Is Nigh" types prey on the fears of the public to make a
profit is not in question, isn't the question, and wasn't nor isn't the point.


As in most things, the truth is always in the middle. Belittling or outright
derision of long-known civil defense measures seems imprudent at best. Think
before you hit that "send" key next time.