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

[Howard Long]

Ed's paperback, What If Radiation Is Good For Us" is on my waiting room table and I gave away a dozen cc because it does describe accurately what I have learned in dozens of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness presentations ( next meeting in Albuquerque NM, June)

Howard Long 

On Nov 7, 2010, at 9:41 PM, parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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