[ RadSafe ] Re: References: Radiation Deficiency Caused by Regulators

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 29 13:15:56 CDT 2006

Dr. Long,
As a health physicist I would argue that there will
also be a demand for us because of the regulatory
environment that requies such programs.  Whether or
not you accept the arguments of the LNT or hormesis,
the regulations have not changed.  

I suggest that if you want to make an impact, write
and petition Congress and the regulatory agencies.
Posting information on list servers and Web sites will
not change any laws, regulations or policies.  How
long has the information you cite been circulated? 
How much has changed in radiation regulations?

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> "The LNT hypothesis and multibillion dollar
> radiation protection activities have now become a
> symbiotic self-sustaining powerful political and
> economic force." 
>   Myron Pollycove PhD MD, of US Nuclear Regulatory
> Commission, to 1997 meeting of Doctors for Disaster
> Preparedness.
>   Health physicists will be in great demand for
> treatment and prevention, not ALARA, after,
> "Underexposed - What if Radiation Is Actually Good
> for You?" - Hiserodt, and similar presentations
> educate the public.
>   Professionals may also reference the dozens of
> hour long presentations and questions at
> www.oism.org/DDP
> and the hundreds of studies through Muckerheide who
> has just changed locations
>   muckerheide at comcast.net 
>   Howard Long
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   Dr. Long,
> 1. What does the radon and arthritis have to do with
> the discussion of low-dose radiation and cancer? 
> Apparently if you do not have any good arguments,
> you
> just throw something into the discussin?
> 2. If radiation is so beneficial, what have Drs.
> Pollycove and Feinendigan done to enhance their
> radiation exposures? Have they moved to areas where
> there is more background radiation?
> Can you cite some references in the literature that
> these claims are true? Are there any statistics on 
> humans that support this claim? 
> As I said:
> Your preferences are your choices. I think that
> researchers who study cancer should not be
> discounted
> even if they do not studies do not align with your
> beliefs. 
> --- howard long wrote:
> > Health Physicists,
> > 
> > The following recent exchange on Rad-Sci will help
> > rad-safe participants to position themselves for
> the
> > coming use of 1 to 10 rads to prevent cancer.
> > Pollycove and Feinendigan have shown in cell and
> > mouse studies that radiation blocks 9 ORDERS of
> > magnitude more mutations than it causes. The
> > speculations presented by Jacobus below show the
> > stimulus, but not the 1,000,000,000 x biologic
> > defense response! 
> > Howard Long

>From an article about physicians doing clinical studies: 

"It was just before an early morning meeting, and I was really trying to get to the bagels, but I couldn't help overhearing a conversation between one of my statistical colleagues and a surgeon.

Statistician: "Oh, so you have already calculated the P value?"

Surgeon: "Yes, I used multinomial logistic regression."

Statistician: "Really? How did you come up with that?"

Surgeon: "Well, I tried each analysis on the SPSS drop-down menus, and that was the one that gave the smallest P value"."

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list