[ RadSafe ] Anyone in need of Dose Calibrator and Sheet Flood Sources for Nuclear Medicine in NC area

Bill DeForest billd at prophysics.com
Tue Mar 18 20:57:58 CDT 2008

We have a client in need of decommissioning that desires to give away 3
Cs-137 E-vial sources, 2 Co-57 E-vial sources (~160 uCi each) and 1 Ba -133
E vial source (for dose calibrator accuracy and constancy checking).  If
anyone in the NC area has a client or other that is interested please
contact me (see below)

Bill DeForest, CHP, DABR
ProPhysics Innovations, Inc.
billd at prophysics.com
(O) 800-835-3615
(O) 919-245-0406
(C) 919-306-6345
(F) 919-245-1645
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of howard long
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:42 PM
To: John Jacobus; John R Johnson; Fred Dawson; srp-uk at yahoogroups.com
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] More radiation, less heart disease (much of total) NSWS

"The ubiquitous nature of the radiation response in cellular, animal and
epidemiological studies 
negates the healthy worker effect as an explanation for hormesis."
BScott at lrri.org
Howard Long

----- Original Message ----
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: howard long <hflong at pacbell.net>; John R Johnson
<idias at interchange.ubc.ca>; Fred Dawson <fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk>;
srp-uk at yahoogroups.com
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:05:36 PM
Subject: Re: radiation and heart disease link - prevention!

Dr. Long,
I am not the one who originally questioned this study.  The fact that the
unexposed workers had a higher cancer rate than the general population
brings into question the validity of the study beyond the intent.  I can,
and have, provided you with copies of the analysis of the study.
Unfortunately, your beliefs do not change the facts that this is not a
reliable reference.  
The fact that the workers "appear" to be healthier does not translate into
lower risk of heart disease.  As a physician, I assume that you know that
heart disease is not the only cause of death.  Your conjecture that the
study " MUST have included reduction in heart disease" is clearly without
proof or merit beyond your own spectulation.  
Dr. Cameron was a well recognized physicist who gave much to the medical
physics community.  Nevertheless, he was no epidemiologist.
Again, if you wish to continue this discussion with me, please do so
off-list.  We need to respect the wishes of those who do not what to again
be bothered with this issue.

-- John

howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
Your persistent denigration of Cameron's work 
does require correction to all Radsafe.
NSWS revelation of amazing reduction in total mortality
 (0.76 expected vs controls that eliminated healthy worker effect)
when  >0.5 rem accumulated addition, MUST have included 
reduction in heart disease (over 30% of total mortality).
This small addition of 0.5 rem (rad, cSv etc) is less than 
a whole body scan and about what I get from 
sitting on thoriated welding rods 3 hours a day, and
even more convenient than my sunbathing an hour a week 
for another healthful radiation supplement. 
I have a cc of Cameron's analysis for all who e-mail for it.
 There was no more healthy worker effect than in the controls.
Thank you for keeping HPs aware.
Howard Long

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:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list