# Talk:Alvin C. Graves

The final paragraph of the article reads:
"Ironically, despite Graves' strident dismissal of the dangers of radiation to others, he could not escape the consequences of his own exposure, which had shortened his lifespan measurably (as is now known to be a consequence of large, survivable doses of radiation). He died of a heart attack in 1965, 20 years after the accident, at the age of 54. A follow-up study in 1978 indicated that his death was likely caused by latent heart damage resulting from his radiation exposure in 1946.[7]"
I, for one, am not aware of any medical conclusion about subterminal radiation shortening life as a statistical norm. People die from heart attacks at 54 without radiation playing any part. This claim is reiterated in the last sentence, but the stated "follow-up study" is reported in the New York Times, which merely states the same thing the article does.  One would think a medical report or journal would be the proper source for this, not a third hand source.
I'll edit the paragraph unless someone speaks up to support it within a month. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's better.  Much more POV neutral, IMO.  And I learned a bunch about the two main sources, Fradkin and Welsome, both very good journalists. Death was heart attack brought on by high cholesterol for a long period, which MAY have been caused by systemic problems and may also have been genetic, as his father died of the same.  He took a high dose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alvin C. Graves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Anybody else feel squicky about posting on the internet that some dead guy had a zero semen count?
Anniepoo (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Just the facts, M'am, just the facts."  It was a temporary condition; he later became the father of a healthy son. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
"zero semen count". Shouldn't this be zero sperm count?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.57.56 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, probably.  Semens don't count but sperms do.  Fixed.  SkoreKeep (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)