[ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts)

[Muckerheide]

John,

B & T didn¹t get it right in 1905, as mainstream radiobiology has accepted
since blaming rad-induced effects (cancer) on DNA damage in the Œ50s (also
wrongly).  The low-dose x-ray stimulation of lymphocytes (and stimulation by
heat) in the 1910s - Œ20s that showed reduction and curing of induced cancer
in mice (see e.g., JB Murphy, PNAS, 1920).

As has been established, cell damage doesn¹t lead to adverse health effects.
As has been said (paraphrasing Sohei Kondo), Œcancer is not a problem of
single cells, but of cell society.¹

Fortunately, my conclusions are founded on the review and synthesis of >5000
papers in the last 12 years, plus comprehensive reviews and documentation by
Luckey, Calabrese and many other credible, unbiased science reviewers; plus
attending numerous conferences and meetings, and discussing the evidence and
biological bases for physiological responses and health with many of the
knowledgeable medical and biological researchers (generally NOT physics from
which too many are not adequately informed about the underlying biology ­
thinking that hitting a cell in vitro can be informative of health, rather
than just a reaction that can be informative of some mechanisms).

This, or course, rejects simply parroting the disinformation promulgated by
NCRP/ICRP/BEIR et al. which is designed and practiced to ³sound good² to the
uninformed (especially when crawling the halls of Congress. :-)

Regards, Jim 
=========
  
on 1/4/07 5:00 PM, John Jacobus at crispy_bird at yahoo.com wrote:

> Jim,
> I assume you have heard about the Law Of Bergonie And
> Tribondeau.  How does this factor into your postulate?
>  All you provide below is speculation.
> 
> --- Muckerheide <muckerheide at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> > Friends,
>> > 
>> > Considering the spectrum of biological data, it
>> > seems that there is no
>> > inherently lesser effect for younger people, except
>> > to the extent that
>> > younger people have healthier immune functions and
>> > damage control systems so
>> > they don¹t normally have general detriments.  A
>> > positive response is more
>> > readily seen with supplements given to older people.
>> > 
>> > It¹s like giving vitamins to people in good health
>> > on a normal diet.  They
>> > don¹t seem to do them any good.  But for people,
>> > young or old, that have
>> > significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements
>> > are then readily seen as
>> > obvious essential nutrients.
>> > 
>> > Regards, Jim
>> > 
>> >     
>> > on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>>> > > Yes, Jay,
>>> > >   
>>> > > A different way of stating it it is that the dose
>> > beneficial or harmful to
>>> > > persons under 30 is less than that for older
>> > persons. I wonder if that shows
>>> > > up in Ramsar, Iran data?
>>> > >   
>>> > >  
>>> > >   
>>> > > Howard Long
>>> > > 
>>> > > Jay Caplan <uniqueproducts at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> > >   
>>>> > >> 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline
> rationing, beginning December 1.
> 
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com