[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

[howard long]

Cameron's NSWS analysis, Cohen's radon study, and the Taiwan apt epidemiology were not "flawed"
but objective and consistent with animal experiments like Bobby Scott's.

John Jacobus, activist for big government, regulation and taxes ,
delays cheap, safe, clean energy. Ted Rockwell's book has a graph showing 
the cost and delays for nuclear plants exploding with the over-regulation.

Viva hormesis and revival of nuclear energy (waylaid by Jacobus' and others politics)!
Happy New Year.

Howard Long


----- Original Message ----
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:09:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

Dr. Long,
  Again, the NSWS was found to be flawed, and almost 20 years old.  (Do you have anyting new?) Again, I can send you the reference.  You chose to ignore the healthy worker effect and the fact that the control group was "sicker" than the public.  Even the most basic detains see to escape you.
  
Repeating an assertion over and over again does not make it true.   Indeed, if you want "supplemental radiation," acquire some yourself.            “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
     
      See Cameron, John Is Radiation an Essential Trace Energy?, citing NSWS deathrate 
  only 0.76 that of controls (identical otherwise with no healthy worker effect) 
  for workers receiving over 0.5 rem SUPPLEMENTAL RADIATION, 
  about what mountain state residents get vs gulf coast shipyard worker controls.
  Also Cameron notes a 0.76 less death rate among Britsh radiologists exposed before 1920 to 
  much more radiation compared with afterward.
  
  Indeed, regulators who deprive the public of supplemental radiation are 
  causing many premature deaths, just as if they prohibited I in salt or B1 added to bleached flour. 

Howard Long
  
  ----- Original Message ----
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: howard long <hflong at pacbell.net>; Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:46:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

  Dr. Long,
  What do you mean by "supplemental radiation?" If you are referring to radon mines, they are not regulated. I am sure that if you wanted to by a "Revigator" 
  http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/revigat.htm there are no regulations against them.  There are many types of radiation sources that one can buy, even welding rods.
  
  Caveat emptor
  
howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
  John J,
Regulators who restrict supplemental radiation are as damaging
as regulators wuo required rice be polished (vit B, etc removed).

That gave epidemic Beri Beri (heart failure, nerve pains, etc)

Howard Long

----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Dapra 
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 8:42:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

Dec. 28

John Jacobus wrote, "Generally, those who believe in "hormesis" 
say that there is a benefitical effect as a blanket statement. If you 
disagree, then you are a regulator who is imposing undue restrictions."

If indeed people are saying this about regulators they are taking 
a clumsy and heavy-handed approach. Hormesis may prove to be false. To 
state the obvious, lack of a hormetic effect does not mean exposure is 
harmful. Proponents of hormesis who say regulators who deny hormesis are 
imposing undue restrictions are just as wrong as regulators who regulate 
(or try to regulate) below a level where no harm has been shown. Or as 
wrong as regulators who try to regulate based on junky studies.

To back up again, it seems that the attempt to regulate phthalates 
is based on a questionable study published in Environmental Health 
Perspectives. See this blog link 
. 
It has an excerpt from the editorial column in the LA Times, the one that 
Barbara Hamrick mentioned earlier in this thread. If readers go to this 
link, scroll down a short distance to an area that is highlighted in pale 
orange, and read the three links in this area. In particular, read the 
third link (click on "overstated"). It is an article from the Statistical 
Assessment Service at George Mason University about how Time magazine 
played fast and loose with the truth about phthalate studies.

The key study about phthalates in the context at hand appears to 
have been published in Environmental Health Perspectives. [Environ Health 
Perspect. 2005 August; 113(8): 1056-1061.] This link is to the abstract, 
and to some related 
materials: 
.

This link is to the paper (not in PDF): 
. If 
you read nothing else, read the Discussion. The qualifiers alone "are 
worth the price of admission."

Steven Dapra