[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 289, Issue 1
alongman at purdue.edu
alongman at purdue.edu
Sat May 1 23:40:48 CDT 2010
Blaine,
You make a rational argument as a person understanding physics. The
general public, though, has had their trust violated by scientists and
wants constant reaffirmation in areas where it suspects lethal risk may
be in play, but where scientists are suspected of being untrustworthy.
It is insufficient to say the public is "irrational". The public is
not a scientist. So the only way that the public can rationally deal with
scientific issues is if it trusts the scientists. The fake global warming
crisis, personified in the cooked data from England's leaked emails, teaches
the public that scientists will use the bludgeoning force of their
office and reputation in order to foist untruths on the general public, for
their own private agendas, whatever those may be.
As such, in an area wherein they are non-experts, the public demands
proof, over and over, so as to make it impossible for a scientist to use
his authority or position in a rhetorical way, rather than in a factual way.
I am afraid that we are paying for the unscrupulous behaviour of some
scientists, who thought that they could brow beat the public into accepting
a political agenda, rather than remembering their true calling which is to
be gaurdians of supported, objective, facts.
If we all stick unswervingly to facts, as I believe you are doing, over time
the public will come to trust scientists again. But there has been so
much lying and subterfuge on the global warming issue and others that the
public feels both powerless and threatened before a bunch of people that have
power to threaten their lives, but whom they distrust. As a result,
we have to hold ourselves to an even higher line of integrity, and must
explain facts with great patience. Much ground has to be regained through
scrupulous honesty, integrity, and unswerving committment to accuracy in
measurement.
That is my view.
regards,
Andrew
Quoting radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu:
> Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."
>
>
> Important!
>
> To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the following
> guideline when replying to a message or digest:
>
> 1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
> 2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the germane
> sentences to which you're responding.
>
> Thanks!_______________________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science
> panel told " (Blaine Howard)
> 2. Re: " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science
> panel told " (Perle, Sandy)
> 3. Fw: Re: " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges,
> science panel told " (Marvin Resnikoff)
> 4. Re: " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science
> panel told " (Jaro Franta)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Blaine Howard <blainehoward at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges,
> science panel told "
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID: <514950.83145.qm at web50604.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Dear RadSafers,
> I find it hard to understand why people look for radiation effects among
> those residing in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor when the obvious place to
> look is among those working in those reactors and other nuclear facilities.
> The amount of radiation exposure to workers at the reactor is probably
> hundreds of times what residents in the vicinity of the reactor could have
> received.
> Nuclear workers world wide average about 21 per cent lower cancer mortality
> than the general public. They also have 22 per cent lower all cause
> mortality. This information comes from a table found in ?Cancer Mortality
> Among French Atomic Energy Commission Workers? published in The American
> Journal of Industrial Medicine in 2004.
> Of course those defending the LNT claim this is just a very strong ?Healthy
> Worker Effect?. Isn't it marvelous how those employers were able to screen
> out applicants who would later die from cancer? Anyway, the Nuclear Shipyard
> Worker Study proved that the Healthy Worker Effect was not responsible for
> the lower cancer death rate.
> My point is that there is much data about health effects of radiation which
> eliminates any negative effects of much higher radiation doses than those
> received by residents in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor. Why should we
> spend millions of dollars to try to dig out some effects of trivial doses?
> It seems that the NRC is lacking in common sense.
>
> Blaine N. Howard
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:43:51 -0500
> From: "Perle, Sandy" <SPerle at mirion.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces
> challenges, science panel told "
> To: 'Blaine Howard' <blainehoward at yahoo.com>,
> "'radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <5326C9CB0E90714DA70EE1AD39296DFE01E2DAFCBB at MIRION-EXCH-HQ.mirion.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Blaine,
>
> While much of what you say is true, the public does not and will not accept
> that premise. There was just a recent 60 Minutes segment on the issues with
> Southern Company's plans for adding reactors at Vogtle site. The cancer
> incidence rate is higher in this area. More likely, the reason is they have a
> toxic waste dump in the area, but the reactors are there as well. The NRC
> doesn't have a lack of common sense. They have to deal with the public and
> more importantly Congress, who questions all of this and hold the purse
> strings. The public influences Congress. It is a fact and there isn't
> anything that will change this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sandy
>
> -----------------------------------
> Sander C. Perle
> President
> Mirion Technologies
> Dosimetry Services Division
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
> Irvine, CA 92614
>
> +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
> +1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)
>
> Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Blaine Howard
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:39 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science
> panel told "
>
> Dear RadSafers,
> I find it hard to understand why people look for radiation effects among
> those residing in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor when the obvious place to
> look is among those working in those reactors and other nuclear facilities.
> The amount of radiation exposure to workers at the reactor is probably
> hundreds of times what residents in the vicinity of the reactor could have
> received.
> Nuclear workers world wide average about 21 per cent lower cancer mortality
> than the general public. They also have 22 per cent lower all cause
> mortality. This information comes from a table found in ?Cancer Mortality
> Among French Atomic Energy Commission Workers? published in The American
> Journal of Industrial Medicine in 2004.
> Of course those defending the LNT claim this is just a very strong ?Healthy
> Worker Effect?. Isn't it marvelous how those employers were able to screen
> out applicants who would later die from cancer? Anyway, the Nuclear Shipyard
> Worker Study proved that the Healthy Worker Effect was not responsible for
> the lower cancer death rate.
> My point is that there is much data about health effects of radiation which
> eliminates any negative effects of much higher radiation doses than those
> received by residents in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor. Why should we
> spend millions of dollars to try to dig out some effects of trivial doses?
> It seems that the NRC is lacking in common sense.
>
> Blaine N. Howard
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments
> transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may
> contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use
> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message,
> delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and
> destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Marvin Resnikoff <radwaste at rwma.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: Re: " Planned study on cancer risk faces
> challenges, science panel told "
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID: <585927.70297.qm at web406.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 4/30/10, Marvin Resnikoff <radwaste at rwma.com> wrote:
>
> From: Marvin Resnikoff <radwaste at rwma.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges,
> science panel told "
> To: "Blaine Howard" <blainehoward at yahoo.com>
> Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 5:45 PM
>
> Blaine:
> This is a followup to a study near German nuclear reactors where excess
> leukemias were found.? While individual doses to workers are of course much
> higher, the population of workers is obviously much smaller.? Anyway, that's
> the rationale.
> Marvin Resnikoff
>
> --- On Fri, 4/30/10, Blaine Howard <blainehoward at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: Blaine Howard <blainehoward at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science
> panel told "
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 5:38 PM
>
> Dear RadSafers,
> ? I find it hard to understand why people look for radiation effects among
> those residing in the vicinity of a nuclear
> reactor when the obvious place to look is among those working in those
> reactors and other nuclear facilities.? The amount of radiation exposure to
> workers at the reactor is probably hundreds of times what residents in the
> vicinity of the reactor could have received.
> ? Nuclear workers world wide average about 21 per cent lower cancer mortality
> than the general public.? They also have 22 per cent lower all cause
> mortality.? This information comes from a table found in ?Cancer Mortality
> Among French Atomic Energy Commission Workers? published in The American
> Journal of Industrial Medicine in 2004.
> ? Of course those defending the LNT claim this is just a very strong ?Healthy
> Worker Effect?.? Isn't it marvelous how those employers were able to screen
> out applicants who would later die from cancer?? Anyway, the Nuclear Shipyard
> Worker Study proved that the Healthy Worker Effect was not responsible for
> the lower
> cancer death rate.
> ? My point is that there is much data about health effects of radiation which
> eliminates any negative effects of much higher radiation doses than those
> received by residents in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor.? Why should we
> spend millions of dollars to try to dig out some effects of trivial doses??
> It seems that the NRC is lacking in common sense.
>
> Blaine N. Howard
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:19:13 -0400
> From: "Jaro Franta" <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces
> challenges, science panel told "
> To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP468C2524810CDF6662B977F3000 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Good comment Blaine !
>
> While there is probably little chance of avoiding the waste of "millions of
> dollars to try to dig out some effects of trivial doses", as Sandy says,
> perhaps the study could be better steered, based on previous experience.
>
> For example, a similar German study apparently found that cancer rates were
> slightly higher in locales where nuke plants were planned, but never actually
> built.
>
> Perhaps the same could be looked at in the US, where a number of projects
> were abandoned in the 80's ?
>
> I would love to see Mangano & co. try to sweep that one under the carpet !
>
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Blaine Howard
> Sent: April-30-10 5:39 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Planned study on cancer risk faces challenges, science
> panel told "
>
> Dear RadSafers,
> I find it hard to understand why people look for radiation effects among
> those residing in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor when the obvious place to
> look is among those working in those reactors and other nuclear facilities.
> The amount of radiation exposure to workers at the reactor is probably
> hundreds of times what residents in the vicinity of the reactor could have
> received.
> Nuclear workers world wide average about 21 per cent lower cancer mortality
> than the general public. They also have 22 per cent lower all cause
> mortality. This information comes from a table found in ?Cancer Mortality
> Among French Atomic Energy Commission Workers? published in The American
> Journal of Industrial Medicine in 2004.
> Of course those defending the LNT claim this is just a very strong ?Healthy
> Worker Effect?. Isn't it marvelous how those employers were able to screen
> out applicants who would later die from cancer? Anyway, the Nuclear Shipyard
> Worker Study proved that the Healthy Worker Effect was not responsible for
> the lower cancer death rate.
> My point is that there is much data about health effects of radiation which
> eliminates any negative effects of much higher radiation doses than those
> received by residents in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor. Why should we
> spend millions of dollars to try to dig out some effects of trivial doses?
> It seems that the NRC is lacking in common sense.
>
> Blaine N. Howard
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 289, Issue 1
> ***************************************
>
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list