[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 26 20:22:37 CST 2007
Yes, you are quite right.
All science is either physics or stamp collecting. Ernest. Rutherford
Again, the quotation goes to the heart of what science, the understanding of how the universe functions. Without and understanding, it is collection of facts and events.
As for Dr. Long, he and I have had this discussion many times. I certainly try to show him the proper respect by using his title, which he earned. I applauded his efforts when a number of years back to speak at a meeting of anti-nuclear people (CORE or something like that) who were protesting at one of the national labs.
And how have my attacks been personal? He pronounces that studies prove his beliefs, which they do not. He cherry-picks those studies, many decades old and are questionable, that he hopes will support his position at the explusion of other studies. If he was to protest against nuclear power, the use of depleted uranium, etc. and distrot the arguments, would you comment. I certainly do not distort his sincerity, but do question his ability to raise the discussion about a couple of cherry-picked studies. If you want to sit back and have a chuckle about his (or my) statements, that is fine. However, I challenge you to find a good example where the expounding of bad science in the form of bad studies has been a good idea.
A friend once said that he stood before a group of researchers at a meeting on the hazards of radon, and asked if any of them had such concerns that they had their houses tested. If you hope the principle that radition (radon) is dangerous, then should you not act on it. If you believe that radiation is so beneficial, should you not act on it?
garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote:
I think it was Rutherford, not Bohr.
"In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting." But I will not deny that Rutherford, by saying that, made himself a bit of a boor. Of course if you agree with him then he's just an elitist. :)
Also, I urge you to lay off the ad hominem attacks. You are not elevating yourself or your profession. Quite the opposite.
On 26 Dec 2007 at 12:48, John Jacobus wrote:
Once again you confuse fact with speculation. But that is not
unusual for you.
1. It is interesting that 10 rem is the dose level at which no
affects (good or bad) have found in human populations. How does the
late Dr. Luckey quantity this level with hormesis? What benefits
are there, if any? My understand that acute affects can be mediated
by "priming doses," but there is no benefits to subsequent cancer
induction in animal populations. If this a one-time dose, what if
you receive 10 or 20 rem every year? If he was such a proponent,
what did he do to get his hormetic dose? Or did he think that it
was not important enough to receive any himself?
Dr. Luckey's work reminds me of Niels Bohr's old saw, that if you do
not study physics, you are just collecting stamps.
"If history teaches any lesson it is that no nation has an inherent right to greatness. Greatness has to be earned and continually re-earned."
- Norman Augustine, Chairman of the National Academies Committee
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
More information about the RadSafe