[ RadSafe ] CT vs. X-Ray for reduction of Cancer Death Can I have a copy

[parthasarathy k s]

Ed Hiserodt,

I am not converted that easily yet to hormesis concept. I am keen on getting an 
electronic copy of your book. I am a science journalist; I contribute regularly 
to a few English dailies in India. I shall write about your book  quoting with 
your permission some relevant portions of it. It will be refreshing for my 
readers.

Thanks in advance

K SPparthasarathy





________________________________
From: Ed Hiserodt <hise at sbcglobal.net>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Mon, 8 November, 2010 4:58:39
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] CT vs. X-Ray for reduction of Cancer Death

Hello Gary, 



Thanks for that interesting response.  As a layman I  have a problem with
radiation scientists ignoring two of the largest epidemiological studies
done on low level radiation effects, the first of which is the "Shipyard
Study" by Johns-Hopkins that was kept under wraps for years as it pointed
STRONGLY to a  hormetic effect from LLR - not the desired conclusion.
Starting with a pool of 700,000 some 39,000 nuclear workers were paired with
33,000 peers from the same hiring line.  Yet the nuclear workers had
Standard Mortality Ration of 0.76 compared to their unexposed fellow
workers.  No "healthy worker effect" here.  



And how can radiation protection folks summarily dismiss Bernie Cohen's
monumental study of effects of residential radon where he continues to ask
about "our discrepancy".  The discrepancy?  Only that the University of
Pittsburgh study of 1,729 COUNTIES showed an unmistakable decrease in lung
cancer when the mean radiation level increased up to 6 pC/l.  No one yet has
come forth yet with an explanation other than hormesis.  



Not being part of your club, but having 50 years experience in other
engineering disciplines, I just can't understand why there is such a
reluctance to look this subject in the eye when the statistics are
overwhelming.  In deference to Sandy's statement "The notion that everyone
would benefit from a higher dose of radiation in my opinion is not
acceptable, nor is there evidence that there is any positive benefit", I
would point out that in my amateurish book "Underexposed",  there were 162
examples of a positive benefit.  I would be happy to send a copy to anyone
interested in this evidence collected over a two year study on my part.



Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, Inc.

Maumelle, AR

501 258 2571 



ow to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu