[ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens and self-serving regulators
hflong at pacbell.net
Tue Mar 21 13:51:05 CST 2006
John, Your put-down of scientists for whom I have the greatest respect, after debating with them for many hours, indicates where I should consider your opinions.
Regretfully, Howard Long
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
The majority of the scientist who STUDY climate,
unlike those on your list, believe that global warming
is year. The organization you provide the link to
carries little, if any weight, in this issue. Ignoring
the science that being studied does not prove you
position, just your inability to accept reality.
1. Anyone can set up a Web site to have people sign
in. There was probably no checking to see if the
signators were really who they say they are.
2. I wonder how many who originally signed have
changed their minds.
--- howard long wrote:
> NOT the "majority" believe global warming as much a
> problem as CO2 starvation.,John.
> Go to www.oism.org/pproject for better info.
> Howard Long
> John Jacobus wrote:
> Yes, I knew you were referring to a different paper
> The issue of how the media reports science stories
> not a new one. When my daughter and son were
> in journalism, they were required to take a basic
> science course, like biology. The inherent problem
> the reporters are no more knowledgeable about
> than other members of the public. Consequently, when
> a "news" story is developed, I doubt if many reports
> have any idea about the science or the uncertainties
> that goes into the data and its analysis. Consider
> the questioning of "global warming," despite the
> that the majority of science who actually do the
> studies think it is a real phenomenon.
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> > John:
> > Thank you for the pointer to your HPS "Ask the
> > Experts" statement on question #4173.
> > Congratulations for the excellently balanced
> > you were able to formulate!
> > BTW: I did not relate to the Brenner (2001) paper
> > which deals with childhood risk but to the
> > Berrington de Gonzales LANZET (2004) paper which
> > addresses adult risks. I hold that we should
> > distinguish these situations as we should keep in
> > mind that CT exposures may be different from truly
> > chronic irradation.
> > Of course your remarks pertain to both studies,
> > - once more - the media apparently are not
> > interested in bothering their consumers with such
> > 'minor' qualifications.
> > That would devalue the worth of one of their best
> > selling merchandise - ANGST.
> > Kind regards, Rainer
> > ________________________________
> > Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> > Gesendet: Fr 17.03.2006 18:35
> > An: Facius, Rainer; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at;
> > tom.mohaupt at wright.edu; maurysis at ev1.net
> > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears
> > promoted by anti-nuclear Greens
> > Rainer,
> > I think what you report is very typical of studies
> > of
> > this nature. Sure, you can calculate that 2049
> > persons in Germany might get cancer from x-ray
> > exposures. But what are the limitations of this
> > work?
> > How many cancers are expected to occur every year?
> > What is the uncertainty in the statistics? (I am
> > always suspecious when numbers are report with
> > accuracy, e.g., 2049, not 2050 or 2048?)
> > Some time ago, I wrote an answer to a person
> > concerned
> > about his eight-year old son having a CT scan
> > a
> > head injury. You may find my response interesting.
> > From
> > . . .
> > With regard to the Brenner, et. al. (2001) paper
> > mention, a number of points need to be made clear.
> > First, the study was not based on the occurrence
> > cancers in real patients. His analysis is based on
> > studies of dose distributions in patients and
> > estimated cancer risks extrapolated from the doses
> > to
> > the various organs irradiated.
> > Second, the perspective risks may be overstated
> > based
> > on what is known about the natural cancer risks in
> > children and adults. The following is from the
> > conclusion:
> > "Although the absolute estimated risks that we
> > projected are quite high, the percentage increase
> > the cancer mortality rate over the natural
> > background
> > rate is very low. For example, of the
> > 600,000 children less than 15 years old who are
> > estimated to undergo CT each year in the United
> > States, approximately 140,000 will ultimately die
> > cancer. Thus, the estimated projected 500
> > deaths represents a small (approximately 0.35%)
> > percentage increase over this background. This
> > estimated relative risk suggests that detection of
> > an
> > increased risk in an epidemiologic study would not
> > be
> > easy, although a recent case-control study  on
> > the
> > association between pediatric radiologic
> > and childhood leukemia did show a significant
> > elevated
> > risk (linearly related to the number of
> > examinations)
> > compared with controls in children who received
> > or
> > more diagnostic examinations (odds ratio, 1.6;
> > confidence interval, 1.1-2.3)."
> > --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> > > "Unfortunately, the non-scientists may not grasp
> > the
> > > significance of this aspect of the arguments.
> > > Rather, they [only!] hear that there is a risk."
> > >
> > > Dear John:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You hit the nail on its head: This exactly is
> > > crux!
> > >
> > > *************************
> > >
> > > Combine the LNT postulate with the outright
> > asinine
> > > (ab-)use of collective dose as a prognostic tool
> > and
> > > the news greedily will distribute the horror
> > stories
> > > kicked off by papers like e.g.
> > >
> > > Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S, Risk of
> > > from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and
> > 14
> > > other countries. The Lancet 363(2004)354-351
> > >
> > > that in Germany 2049 persons (7587 in Japan,
> > in
> > > the US) will contract cancer each year due to
> > a
> > > large degree unwarranted) diagnostic X-ray
> > > exposures! They really did that!
> > >
> > > Such 'scientific' conclusions could not be
> > published
> > > if committees like BEIR would differentiate more
> > > strictly between data and fit paramters, between
> > > facts and 'model' results.
> > >
More information about the RadSafe