[ RadSafe ] FW: AW: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable

[Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)]

Resending. The msg was too large.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide

-----Original Message-----
From: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA) 
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 2:09 PM
To: 'Rainer.Facius at dlr.de'; hflong at pacbell.net; nbcsoc at hotmail.com; tedrock at starpower.net; radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU; Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: AW: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable


Rainer and All,

> If it is true then relax: "For there is nothing covered that 
> will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known."

That may be true, but it has been 70 years and counting...

And without heroic efforts by a few people, e.g., Don Luckey, Ed Calabrese, all would still be dark.  Routine science papers, and some letters and presentations, primarily to scientists have negligible effect.  The "science" leaders get their own people who are willing to be "successful" academics, and participants in the "review bodies" who are vetted to assure that they "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil" (or else, as Brucer said, "...be drummed out of science").

As we took our case to Congress, NCRP and our rad protection orgs were crawling the halls of Congress, having "editorial board meetings" with the media, etc.  (We also found that the further away they are from knowledgeable professionals, the lower their technical "accuracy."

There's an interesting Aug 30 Boston Globe column on this process, "MIT's inconvenient scientist," at:
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/ 

(It may require a free registration.  Let me know if you want me to send it.)

Regards, Jim 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de [mailto:Rainer.Facius at dlr.de] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:59 PM
> Subject: AW: AW: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
> 
> 
> > ... data ... , has, according to Luan, been withheld by 
> authorities<< 
> 
> Howard, 
> 
> I wish I had substantiated information to evaluate this claim. 
> 
> If it is true then relax: "For there is nothing covered that 
> will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known."
> 
> Kind regards, Rainer
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: howard long [mailto:hflong at pacbell.net]
> Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 18:41
> Betreff: Re: AW: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
> 
> Taiwan apartment data (that might bring it closer to an ideal 
> experiment),
> has, according to Luan, been withheld by authorities with 
> that data whose jobs depend on LNT. Sound familiar?
>  
> "In war, all plans must be changed after the first battle."
> Indeed, LNT-dependent bureaucrats, in Taiwan and in the USA, 
> obscure Taiwan apt and NSWS data that would eliminate their jobs.
>  
> Howard Long
>
> 
> Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> 	Dear colleague,
> 	
> 	a major (if not the most important) point which 
> Gregoire&Cleland attempt to make is that we have to identify 
> the proper time scale which is characteristic for the action 
> of the defensive mechanisms undoing the damage inflicted on 
> the molecular level by radiation. The fuzziness of their 
> database allowed them just to rule out total dose (which does 
> not at all relate to time) and the average/maximum dose per 
> week. Their best guess for the proper time interval turned 
> out to be the day. So, in the spirit of their argument, dose 
> rates other than per day may not be useful as a predictor of 
> cancer risk. 
> 	
> 	I concur with your characterization of the chronic 
> Taiwan residential radiation exposures as a most important 
> data base relevant for the assessment of the risk from 
> chronic low LET radiation. On the other hand, the 
> presentation of the epidemiological data (in contrast to the 
> dosimetric) in the publications which I know, e.g., Is 
> chronic radiation an effective prophylaxis against cancer? J. 
> Am. Phys. Surg. 9#1(2004)6-10 leaves too many possible and 
> legitimate questions unanswered to count as a definite 
> account of that experience. (I do not claim that you don't 
> have answers but just that you did not present them in this paper). 
> 	
> 	I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues will 
> continue to evaluate this data base and provide a follow-up 
> report which is less prone to valid criticism. (Any criticism 
> if offered with sufficient precision is valid.)
> 	
> 	Best regards, Rainer
> 	
> 	________________________________
> 	
> 	Von: yuan-chi luan [mailto:nbcsoc at hotmail.com]
> 	Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 04:33
> 	Betreff: RE: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
> 	
> 	Dear Howard and all friends:
> 	
> 	I think your still remember the most coincidentally 
> experiments conducted by human beings on the health effects 
> of radiation in the Taiwan Co-60 contaminated apartments 
> incident. I would like to present you the dose rate per hour, 
> per day and per year in the incident for your consideration 
> in this issue:
> 	
> 	1, The Taiwan Co-60 incident was first discovered in 
> 1992, all the apartments were built in 1981~1984, and most in 
> 1983. When a big scale searching program was conducted in 
> 1996, there were many apartments surveyed with dose rate per 
> hour in greater than 1 mSv/hr in the key positions (of course 
> much higher in 1983). The key positions are the sofa in the 
> living room, the bed in the bedroom and the stove in the 
> kitchen or the table in the study room. 
> 	
> 	2, In the survey operation, the dose rate per day in 
> the apartments had been roughly calculated right away, it was 
> equivalent to dose rate per hour at sofa multiple 12hrs¤Qdose 
> rate per hour at bed multiple 8 hrs¤Qdose rate per hour at 
> stove or study table multiple 4hrs, and then divided the 
> doses by 24 hrs. The dose rate was always lower than 24 mSv/day. 
> 	
> 	1. In the survey operation, the dose rate per year 
> could be also calculated right away. It was equivalent to 
> dose rate per day multiple 365 days, and modified with 
> various factors, such the days would not be 365 and the 
> radiation would decay. The dose rate per year was averaged to 
> be about 50 mSv/y, the highest one was about 1000 mSv/y in 
> 1983, then it could be based for roughly determining the dose 
> rate and the total doses in different year 
> 	
> 	4. The most important of the incident was the health 
> effects of the chronic radiation we observed in Taiwan Co-60 
> incident was that the cancer mortalities of the resident was 
> sharply reduced to a few percentage of the general 
> population, even the dose rate per year and accumulated doses 
> to quite high. 
> 	
> 	Best regards
> 	
> 	Y.C. Luan Senior Scientist of NuSTA and Consultant of 
> NBC Society