[ RadSafe ] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia

Fri Aug 26 15:23:39 CDT 2005

Hi all,

As has been well established from numerous studies of thyroid cancer risk, the thyroid cancer risk/rad from direct radiation [external beam x-ray or gamma vs. internal I-131 exposure] is about 3 to 1. That is 3 rads internal has the thyroid cancer potential of about 1 rad external x-ray/gamma exposure.

The CDC has shown in its [in]actions on dealing with the health risks of Nasal Radium Irradiation [NRI]  to shrink hypertrophied adenoids that dealing with radiation risks is completely "situational". NRI would irradiate the thyroid with direct gamma radiation based on the distance of the thyroid from the opening of Eustachian tube. Epidemiological studies conducted as Ph.D. theses [Sandler, 1978] and [Yeh, 1997] carried out at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health with the results selectively published in peer-reviewed journals have shown that treated children have a highly significant risk of thyrotoxicosis[Graves Disease -RR= 8.6], thyroid cancer [RR= 5.3], adjusted benign and malignant brain tumors [RR=30.9], head and neck cancer [RR=3], and cancer of soft palete [RR=13] vs. untreated controls were reviewed by the CDC. 

The CDC was forced to review NRI after a hearing was organized by Sen. Lieberman in 1994 at which I testified as a member of the public/scientist who had brought the issue to Sen. Lieberman related to NRI's experimental use on WW.II. era submariners noted in a letter I coauthored with Dr. Alan Ducatman of MIT in a  letter-to-the-editor of the New England Journal of Medicine ['Radium Exposure in U.S. Military Personnel"] in 1992,. The CDC in 1995 determined and published in 1996 that no fewer than 560,000 American children as a lo-lo estimate [and a hi-hi estimate of 2.6 million] received NRI treatments from 1946 to 1961. The thyroid gamma radiation dose from the nasal radium irradiator placed  bilaterally at the rear of the patient's nasopharynx [a 50 mg radium source encased in 0.3 mm Monel, 10 to 12 minutes per treatment, for average of 3 treatments per standard course of treatment] delivered far more radiation dose to the thyroid from direct radiation on a rad basis, than
 the Hanford downwinders received on average on a rad basis from internal exposure.

YET, when the Massachusett's Department of Public Health in 1997 was considering a health warning to be issued to all the physicians in the Commonwealth of Mass. following several briefings I provided to the Advisory Committee on Radiation Risks to the Massachusetts' Governor, the CDC fought tooth and nail that the Mass. DPH should not issue an advisory that people treated as children with NRI represented a "special population at risk" because "there is no significant neoplastic or other disease risk from nasal radium irradiation." Obviously, this statement by the CDC is agenda/politicised science at its worst and shows that the CDC is willing to ignore substantial radiation risks to the US population while overexaggerating risks from nuclear power/defense related radiation issues. 

Thankfully, the MA Dept. of Public Health had the good sense to ignore the CDC's strong entreaties not to issue a Public Health Advisory on NRI to all 27,000 physicians in the Commonwealth.

If anyone wishes full citations on the above matters, please contact me.

Stewart Farber, MSPH
farbersa at optonline.net
Consulting Scientist
1285 Wood Ave.
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 367-0791

=================
.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU>
Date: Friday, August 26, 2005 3:23 pm
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia

> First, there are no significant exposures to the population, even 
> thoughthere could have been individual instances of significant 
> exposures.
> As Ralph Lapp said in the early '90s: "Any credible scientist that 
> explainedthat no effects could be found were excluded from 
> participating in the
> study."  And science knows that millions of people received much 
> higherthyroid doses from medical diagnostics (especially before 
> 1970 and the
> introduction of radioimmunoassay by Roz Yalow, for which she 
> received the
> Nobel Prize), and the even higher doses for hyperthyroid 
> treatment, with no
> thyroid cancer effects.  (For the hyperthyroid patients there was 
> no leukemia
> or other cancers from the 10-15 rad whole body dose associated 
> with the I-131
> treatment.)
> 
> ATSDR is so inept that was claiming that toxic chemicals have 
> adverse effects
> right down to zero, except they 'arbitrarily' allowed that there 
> could be no
> effects below the level of the Minimum Daily Requirement for these 
> vitaminsand minerals.  
> 
> There is no credible science, nor scientists, involved.
> 
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> ========================
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-
> bounces at radlab.nl] On
> > Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:19 PM
> > To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia
> > 
> > Jim Muckerheide wrote:
> > 
> > > Our responsible industry and government authorities need to 
> develop and
> > > establish the institutional basis to question these results....
> > >
> > > Obviously, no credible "science" or scientists influence these 
> results!> 
> > I'm guessing Jim hasn't seen the videos:
> > 
> >    
> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hanford/health_care/video_presentations.html> 
> > If he has, I wonder what his definition of "credible" is.
> > 

> 