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

[Ted Rockwell]

Jim:

One can¹t help but admire the specificity and relevance, not to mention the
promptness, of your nailing Dr. Goethe¹s position on this matter.  And I can
see how it applies to radiation.  But I¹m still not clear as to how, say a
metabolic release of a free radical that then attacks a cell, is a
fundamentally different process.  I think Goethe might apply the same words
to it.

What say ye?  And Otto: where do you stand on this?

TR



From: Muckerheide <muckerheide at comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:47:17 -0400
To: Rainer Fascius <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>, "Dr. Otto Raabe"
<ograabe at ucdavis.edu>, <hflong at pacbell.net>, Theodore Rockwell
<tedrock at starpower.net>, Jim Muckerheide-MEMA <jim.muckerheide at state.ma.us>,
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Cc: <Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com>, <rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU>
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive
variable

Dear Rainer,  I find:

  From the notes of a 1995 law article by Theodor Schilling, at:
http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/95/9510ind.html

[6] ... And cf Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Faust, The First Part of the Tragedy
(W. Kaufmann, transl.) (Doubleday, Garden City NY 1961) line 1995 et seq:
"Denn eben, wo Begriffe fehlen, da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich
ein" (For just where no ideas are, The proper word is never far).

 [7]  Cf Goethe, ibid, line 1993: "doch ein Begriff muß bei dem Worte sein"
(Yet some idea there must be).

In the context of:

Introduction
A. The 1991 Maastricht Conference on the Political Union was saved, it is
sometimes claimed, by one word: subsidiarity [1]. Indeed, this word, or the
concept expressed by it, introduced into the then EEC Treaty for the first
time by the Single European Act (SEA), in the context of the environmental
policy (Art. 130 r (4) EECT) [2], has been used widely throughout the
Maastricht Treaty. It is part of the European Treaties now in at least four
places: the second penultimate recital in the preamble of the Maastricht
Treaty (expressly), Art. A (2) of the Maastricht Treaty (impliedly), Art. B
(2) of the Maastricht Treaty (expressly) and, last but not least, Art. 3b
(2) ECT [3]. It is now the second most often mentioned principle in the
European Treaties; only the prohibition of discrimination is mentioned in
more places. Its specific importance is underscored by the decisive rôle it
played in the success of the Maastricht Conference and in the ultimately
succesful efforts to dispel widespread popular concern about the Maastricht
Treaty [4]. Plainly, therefore, it appears at the outset that it must be
taken very seriously indeed [5].

However, a lingering doubt subsists. Could it possibly be that "the word
that saved Maastricht" is just that, just a word, bare of any concept [6]?
It may well be that this was the intention of some, or even many, of the
delegations at the Maastricht Conference. However, it is not possible to
ascertain how the individual members of the Maastricht Conference conceived
of this word. Neither is it necessary. They introduced the word into what,
after ratification, became the amended treaties, and it is there, in the
treaties, where its meaning, the concept of subsidiarity, must be found [7].

Perhaps you can your sense of the faithfulness of the English to Geothe¹s
intent; to your intent. :-)

Regards, Jim
===========

on 9/7/06 4:39 AM, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de at Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> << All of these examples refer to deterministic processes rather than
> stochastic processes, so no LNT advocate would consider them  to be relevant
> for evaluating radiation induced cancer. >>
> 
> Prof. Raabe's point is well taken - provided the distinction between
> 'deterministic' and 'stochastic' effects is more than a reflection of our
> drive (and associated incapability) to systematize the realm of nature with
> our limited comprehension. Today, for me this classification is hardly more
> than this. Forgive me, if I quote Goethe with his unequalled characterization
> in his Faust I of this dilemma:
> 
> Student (V.1993):
> "Doch ein Begriff muß bei dem Worte sein."
> Mephisto (V.1995-6):
> "Denn eben wo Begriffe fehlen, da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein."
> 
> (perhaps some one can provide the English version)
> 
> Operationally, after stripping off the associated verbiage, in the final
> analysis an effect is stochastic by definition, if its probability of
> occurrence increases linearly with 'dose' without threshold, i.e.,
> "stochastic" and "LNT" are synonymous. From that definition it has yet to
> demonstrated that stochastic (radiation) effects do in fact exist.
> 
> Regards, Rainer
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Otto Raabe [mailto:ograabe at ucdavis.edu]
> Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 00:23
> An: howard long; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide-MA; Facius, Rainer;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Cc: Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com; Rad-Sci-L
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
> 
> 
> At 09:45 AM 9/6/2006, howard long wrote:
> 
> 
>     100 aspirin  -  fatal at once, good over a year (to reduce clots and
> mortality rate).
>       10 gallons of water - fatal at once, necessary over a year (in some
> form) to sustain life
>       1000 usual daily doses of Vit A, D, E, R, etc all at once can poison the
> liver, etc.
>       Any prescription I write must have the frequency of the dose, or a
> pharmacist would not fill it.
> 
> ****************************************************
> All of these examples refer to deterministic processes rather than stochastic
> processes, so no LNT advocate would consider them  to be relevant for
> evaluating radiation induced cancer.
> 
> Otto
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> University of California
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************
> 
>