[ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

Wed Jul 4 18:31:01 CDT 2007

Jim,  You give a very insightful assessment of the situation. While it is 
all true, it seems incredible. Someone once said that, in the end, the truth 
will prevail. Personally, I am getting tired of waiting.
Jerry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us>
To: "Flood, John" <FloodJR at nv.doe.gov>; "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at cox.net>; 
"John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

Absolutely.  And "their belief, their religion" is from the high priests
who mislead them (as with many other feeders at the trough of public
fear-mongering and misrepresentation) to defraud that gullible public,
and media, and politicians of $100s of Billions - i.e., the ICRP, NCRP,
BEIR, EPA (with a 4 mrem/yr dose limit on natural radioactivity sources)
and the many other agencies and "radon remediators" and
rad-protectionists crawling the halls of Congress to reinforce the fraud
that "ever photon is a (potential) killer.

And, indeed, physics, biology and medicine are irrelevant - except as
massive funding can be justified to feed the profitable interests.

Radiation fear-mongering was started the progenitor of the ICRP formed
by the British radiology society (which continues today to produce
radiation fear-mongering in selling ever-higher cost equipment on the
fraudulent premise of "dose reduction").

This was pushed by the high-profit pharmaceutical-driven exclusion of
any and all non-profitable therapies.  FDA led this effort, running a
"study" through the NAS (as they have done recently with the BEIR VII
report).  In the original case, they got a "radiation-researcher" (a
botanist, whose own advisor had done plant stimulation work) to write an
"NAS report" (1935-36, Edna Johnson U.Colorado) to claim that low-dose
radiation did not stimulate plant growth. (This has obviously been
refuted by numerous high school science fair projects - even though AEC
booklets to provide such instruction say to start doses at levels above
the stimulation range, i.e., at 1000 rad).

FDA and others used this NAS report to claim that low-dose medical
treatments are not shown to be effective, in favor of serums and other
drugs.

This medical case had to be re-established post-war despite the contrary
Manhattan Project data.  This was led by the NCI, reinforced by the
gargantuan profits of antibiotics.  Note that Art Upton was found to be
"qualified" to head NCI.

(Note also that the "Yearbook of Radiology" reported on the year's
research on various low-dose medical therapy applications in the 1947
and 1948 volumes, with NONE in the 1949 and 1950 volumes.)

So while there are people who know the truth among the "anti's and the
media and politicians, etc., the "believers" among them are not being
ignorant, they are just being gullible - manipulated by the
"authorities" in our official circles.  Who can blame them?

A number of years ago, in response to providing some representative
papers, a prominent reporter asked if I could identify very prominent
supporters, and changed that to:  "Can you name one university president
who would agree with you?" I thought he was being very insightful.  What
university president who KNEW that low-dose radiation was not harmful,
and even beneficial, would dare abandon his primary mission of
extracting all of the government funding that he could, with certainty
of retribution from many key funding agencies even if his own university
did NO low-dose radiation research!?

The same is true for national lab people.  Consider the resounding
silence that came from the lab people who know the voluminous data in
response to Bill Richardson's fraudulent claims that we are (still)
killing of our cold war warriors in weapons work, including those whose
doses were within established dose limits.  (But it was also a cheap way
to prevent worker lawsuits of the lab contractors.)

Regards, Jim

>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Flood, John
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:05 PM
>To: Sandy Perle; John Jacobus; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study
>
>I've been posting this message intermittently for about ten years now -
>the major problem we have with discussing radiation and its
>effects with
>the anti's is that we are talking about science and they are talking
>about religion.  They BELIEVE - they have FAITH - they know in their
>hearts that every photon is a killer.  Physics, biology, and medicine
>are irrelevant. And anyone who dares to oppose their beliefs gets
>treated the way any zealot treats a blasphemer.
>
>John R. (Bob) Flood
>Radiological Health
>Nevada Test Site
>(702) 295-2514
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Behalf Of Sandy Perle
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:09 AM
>To: 'John Jacobus'; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study
>
>John makes a good point. No matter what political or other persuasion
>one
>subscribes to, the fact for the majority is that they do believe what
>they
>preach, and it's not just an agenda or that they're playing a devil's
>advocate role to further the debate. They truly believe what they
>preach. As
>I mentioned previously, Dick Toohey gives an excellent presentation
>titled,
>Why No One Believes Us: Cognitive Neuroscience and Radiation Risk. It
>provides excellent examples and factors for this reality.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Sander C. Perle
>President
>Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
>2652 McGaw Avenue
>Irvine, CA 92614
>
>Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
>Fax:(949) 296-1144
>
>E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
>E-Mail: sandyfl at cox.net
>
>Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Behalf
>Of John Jacobus
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:38 AM
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study
>
>Why do you think they have a "left-wing extremist
>ideology?"  Is it possible they believe the data is
>true?  If so, then all the arguements and explanations
>you present will not change their minds.
>
>I would suggest reading "Why People Believe Weird
>Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other
>Confusions of Our Time,"
>http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience
/dp/08050
>7089
>3/ref=sr_1_1/103-7576284-3301444?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183469614&sr=8-1
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ 