[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 596, Issue 1

Conklin, Al (DOH) Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV
Mon Apr 11 13:36:07 CDT 2011


Whoever does this, please be specific about why the EPA drinking water
standard does not apply to this accident.

Al Conklin
Lead Trainer and Health Physicist
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Section
Office of Radiation Protection
Department of Health
office: 360-236-3261
cell: 360-239-1237

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of David Grammer
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:12 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 596, Issue 1

The Today Show just called & would like an expert on Radioactive Iodine
#131
in drinking water.
They are considering a segment on a show & were questioning who had
knowledge(actual knowledge would be good).
They were asking about sampling volume & time to analyze. They also said
they had a report that Philadelphia Public water reported 2.5 pCi/L in
their
water supply. Philadelphia said this is the highest it has ever been. 
Anyone interested?

Thank You,

David Grammer

27 Ironia Road, Unit 2
Flanders, NJ 07836
973-927-7303 phone
973-927-8221 fax

www.radata.com


 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:00 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 596, Issue 1

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. Re: Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
      (Falo, Gerald A Dr CIV USA MEDCOM PHC)
   2. Re: Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED) (Ed Hiserodt)
   3. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Steven Dapra)
   4. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Paul Rubin)
   5. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Paul Rubin)
   6. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Jeff Terry)
   7. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Steven Dapra)
   8. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Busby Chris)
   9. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute	Mangano
      andColleagues (Roger Helbig)
  10. Re: Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED) (Jerry Cohen)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:34:16 -0400
From: "Falo, Gerald A Dr CIV USA MEDCOM PHC" <Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <10BC8C12FE777248A8BA96CD7D2102AF0155D9EDD3 at amednrmcf1121>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

All,

I have a pdf version of the shipyard study.  It's 19 MB.  I believe I
got it
from the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR):
https://www.orau.gov/cedr/welcome_to_cedr.aspx#datacollection.  I could
not
find it on the website today, but I wasn't exhaustive in my effort.

There is a section where one can access the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
data:

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (https://www.orau.gov/cedr/navalshipyard.aspx

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) studies were conducted on workers at
the
PNS located in Kittery, Maine.
These workers have been the subjects of a number of epidemiologic
investigations, particularly for lung cancer and leukemia mortality.

Use of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) data files requires
additional
authorization.
Those wishing to use the PNS data files should complete the CEDR PNS
release
form: https://www.orau.gov/cedr/CEDR-AuthorizedUserPNS.pdf

Apparently, there was a follow up in 2008.

Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. Shipyard Workers

Matanoski et al.
Journal of Radiation Research
Vol. 49 (2008), No. 1 83-91

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrr/49/1/83/_pdf

Enjoy,
Jerry

--------------------------
Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
Army Institute of Public Health


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Minnema
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart



Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to
address these allegations.

During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had
chartered
and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).  When I asked him about
why
it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the time
the
study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be
significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that nobody
was
being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and (2)
since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in
the
original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they should
publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had
already
gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the
publications.

Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.

Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the
scientific
method quite well.  The statistical tests one uses are based on the
hypothesis one is testing.  In this study they were trying to determine
if
there was "excess risk" with exposure.  I suspect that many things would
be
done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess
benefit."  Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the
conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other than
what the study was designed to detect.

I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other
copies circulating around.  But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm)
3-ring
binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.
If
you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost
to
scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>
On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects
of
> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'
>
> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I
know.
>
> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:
>> Sandy,
>>
>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear
>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were
paired
at
>> random.  "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the
>> non-nuclear."  How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under
these
>> circumstances?  But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality
Ratio of
>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.  Not what the study was
>> expected to show.  (And probably why it was not published for almost
20
>> years after analysis of the data.)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
<snip>
_______________________________________________
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
Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:57:51 -0500
From: "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	MailingList'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <012401cbf7a8$cfc8f090$4401a8c0 at pumpconbsflye1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Doug,

 

What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers appear
to
have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that one
of
the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:
"My
gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a
prophylactic
for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went
home.
Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this attitude?
Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their heads
No?

 

Just curious,

 

Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, Inc.

Maumelle, AR

 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A
Dr
CIV USA MEDCOM PHC
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:34 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

All,

 

I have a pdf version of the shipyard study.  It's 19 MB.  I believe I
got it
from the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR):
https://www.orau.gov/cedr/welcome_to_cedr.aspx#datacollection.  I could
not
find it on the website today, but I wasn't exhaustive in my effort.

 

There is a section where one can access the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
data:

 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (https://www.orau.gov/cedr/navalshipyard.aspx

 

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) studies were conducted on workers at
the
PNS located in Kittery, Maine.

These workers have been the subjects of a number of epidemiologic
investigations, particularly for lung cancer and leukemia mortality.

 

Use of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) data files requires
additional
authorization.

Those wishing to use the PNS data files should complete the CEDR PNS
release
form: https://www.orau.gov/cedr/CEDR-AuthorizedUserPNS.pdf

 

Apparently, there was a follow up in 2008.

 

Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. Shipyard Workers

 

Matanoski et al.

Journal of Radiation Research

Vol. 49 (2008), No. 1 83-91

 

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrr/49/1/83/_pdf

 

Enjoy,

Jerry

 

--------------------------

Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP

Army Institute of Public Health

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Minnema

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM

To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart

 

 

 

Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to
address these allegations.

 

During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had
chartered
and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).  When I asked him about
why
it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the time
the
study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be
significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that nobody
was
being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and (2)
since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in
the
original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they should
publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had
already
gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the
publications.

 

Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.

 

Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the
scientific
method quite well.  The statistical tests one uses are based on the
hypothesis one is testing.  In this study they were trying to determine
if
there was "excess risk" with exposure.  I suspect that many things would
be
done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess
benefit."  Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the
conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other than
what the study was designed to detect.

 

I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other
copies circulating around.  But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm)
3-ring
binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.
If
you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost
to
scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.

 

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

 

 

>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>

On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

> 

> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects
of

> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'

> 

> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I
know.

> 

> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:

>> Sandy,

>> 

>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear

>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were
paired
at

>> random.  "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the

>> non-nuclear."  How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under
these

>> circumstances?  But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality
Ratio of

>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.  Not what the study was

>> expected to show.  (And probably why it was not published for almost
20

>> years after analysis of the data.)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

> 

<snip>

_______________________________________________

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

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

_______________________________________________

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: 3
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:37:42 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201104101912.p3AJCcEt076680 at ame8.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Apr. 10

"Nothing beside remains.  Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
                         Percy Bysshe Shelley


         Are those monzanite sands?

Steven Dapra



At 09:24 AM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
>I am Busby, king of kings.
>Look upon my works ye mortals and despair!
>
>Bring it on. I'm cleaning off my musket.
>
>Paul Rubin, M.D.
>Houston, Texas USA
>
>On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, "Busby Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> > Nobody is feathering nests Roger, and I hope you tell the 
> radsafers that the UK Member of Parliament Bill Wilson has made a 
> FORMAL complaint to the US Ambassador to the UK about your 
> libellous letters about these people and about me to my university 
> and to the peer review journals that publish my research.
> > Chris Busby
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Roger Helbig
> > Sent: Sat 09/04/2011 04:35
> > To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
> Mailing    List'
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute 
> Mangano andColleagues
> >
> > In Mangano, Sherman, Bertell and other's news release, which has 
> been widely
> > circulated amongst the "Green" community, they mention that they
have
> > published 27 medical journal articles and three books (so don't
question
> > these experts) - they do not mention the uselessness of "tooth
fairy"
> > project or that Bertell has actively claimed that the University of
Alaska
> > HAARP research facility has caused great earthquakes (her disciple
Leuren
> > Moret has made claim that HAARP is instrument of "tectonic 
> warfare" and that
> > elicits a chorus of guffaws from geologists who have been made aware
of
> > that) - what would really be useful is a compendium of each of these
> > articles and books (including the Chernboyl 1,000,000 dead claim
from NY
> > Academy of Sciences) and the articles, etc. that refute these -
Christopher
> > Busby should be added to the list - Moret cites Busby's claim 
> that Fukushima
> > will cause something like 400,000 additional cancer deaths in her
latest
> > claim that the northern 1/3 of Honshu is uninhabitable (guess the 
> people who
> > are beginning to rebuild there don't think much of Moret or don't
have
the
> > internet access - Moret, though, sadly has had fools fund trips 
> to Japan for
> > her before and she delights in free travel at other people's 
> expense and her
> > attorney friend Alfred Lambremont Webre, better known in the past
for
his
> > claimed encounters with extraterrestrial beings, is a shameless 
> and prolific
> > publicicst.   These people intend to feather their own nests well by
> > catering to those who want to forever ban nuclear power.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > Rest of article (that was posted earlier) snipped to focus solely on
the
> > cast of characters who have made the claims
> >
> > *Advisory Board                                  Research
Associates*
> >
> > Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH                  William Reid, MD
> > Samuel S. Epstein, MD                          Susanne Saltzman, MD
> > Agnes Reynolds, RN                             Janette Sherman, MD
> >
> > RPHP is a New York-based group of scientists and health
professionals
who
> > study health hazards of radiation exposure.  Its members have
published
27
> > medical journal articles and 7 books on the topic.





------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:39:44 -0500
From: "Paul Rubin" <paulrubin713 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	Mailing	List'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>, 	"'The
International
	Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing	List'"
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <001201cbf7f1$b8c81350$2a5839f0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

No. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Bringing you U and DU for
over
sixty years. 

Personally I'm worried about CU, Completed Uranium Pb206. It's
everywhere.
Fortunately my aluminum hat, quartz crystals, and monthly power colon
cleanse at the Jiffy-Lube keep me healthy. Now if I could only afford
cigarettes. They're six bucks a pack. I need them. My doctor says I
don't
get enough Polonium in my diet. Sigh. Maybe under ObamaCare.

Paul Rubin, M.D.
Houston,TX     

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 1:38 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
andColleagues

Apr. 10

"Nothing beside remains.  Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
                         Percy Bysshe Shelley


         Are those monzanite sands?

Steven Dapra



At 09:24 AM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
>I am Busby, king of kings.
>Look upon my works ye mortals and despair!
>
>Bring it on. I'm cleaning off my musket.
>
>Paul Rubin, M.D.
>Houston, Texas USA
>
>On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, "Busby Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> > Nobody is feathering nests Roger, and I hope you tell the 
> radsafers that the UK Member of Parliament Bill Wilson has made a 
> FORMAL complaint to the US Ambassador to the UK about your 
> libellous letters about these people and about me to my university 
> and to the peer review journals that publish my research.
> > Chris Busby
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Roger Helbig
> > Sent: Sat 09/04/2011 04:35
> > To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
> Mailing    List'
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute 
> Mangano andColleagues
> >
> > In Mangano, Sherman, Bertell and other's news release, which has 
> been widely
> > circulated amongst the "Green" community, they mention that they
have
> > published 27 medical journal articles and three books (so don't
question
> > these experts) - they do not mention the uselessness of "tooth
fairy"
> > project or that Bertell has actively claimed that the University of
Alaska
> > HAARP research facility has caused great earthquakes (her disciple
Leuren
> > Moret has made claim that HAARP is instrument of "tectonic 
> warfare" and that
> > elicits a chorus of guffaws from geologists who have been made aware
of
> > that) - what would really be useful is a compendium of each of these
> > articles and books (including the Chernboyl 1,000,000 dead claim
from NY
> > Academy of Sciences) and the articles, etc. that refute these -
Christopher
> > Busby should be added to the list - Moret cites Busby's claim 
> that Fukushima
> > will cause something like 400,000 additional cancer deaths in her
latest
> > claim that the northern 1/3 of Honshu is uninhabitable (guess the 
> people who
> > are beginning to rebuild there don't think much of Moret or don't
have
the
> > internet access - Moret, though, sadly has had fools fund trips 
> to Japan for
> > her before and she delights in free travel at other people's 
> expense and her
> > attorney friend Alfred Lambremont Webre, better known in the past
for
his
> > claimed encounters with extraterrestrial beings, is a shameless 
> and prolific
> > publicicst.   These people intend to feather their own nests well by
> > catering to those who want to forever ban nuclear power.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > Rest of article (that was posted earlier) snipped to focus solely on
the
> > cast of characters who have made the claims
> >
> > *Advisory Board                                  Research
Associates*
> >
> > Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH                  William Reid, MD
> > Samuel S. Epstein, MD                          Susanne Saltzman, MD
> > Agnes Reynolds, RN                             Janette Sherman, MD
> >
> > RPHP is a New York-based group of scientists and health
professionals
who
> > study health hazards of radiation exposure.  Its members have
published
27
> > medical journal articles and 7 books on the topic.



_______________________________________________
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: 5
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:39:44 -0500
From: "Paul Rubin" <paulrubin713 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	Mailing	List'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>, 	"'The
International
	Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing	List'"
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <001201cbf7f1$b8c81350$2a5839f0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

No. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Bringing you U and DU for
over
sixty years. 

Personally I'm worried about CU, Completed Uranium Pb206. It's
everywhere.
Fortunately my aluminum hat, quartz crystals, and monthly power colon
cleanse at the Jiffy-Lube keep me healthy. Now if I could only afford
cigarettes. They're six bucks a pack. I need them. My doctor says I
don't
get enough Polonium in my diet. Sigh. Maybe under ObamaCare.

Paul Rubin, M.D.
Houston,TX     

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 1:38 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
andColleagues

Apr. 10

"Nothing beside remains.  Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
                         Percy Bysshe Shelley


         Are those monzanite sands?

Steven Dapra



At 09:24 AM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
>I am Busby, king of kings.
>Look upon my works ye mortals and despair!
>
>Bring it on. I'm cleaning off my musket.
>
>Paul Rubin, M.D.
>Houston, Texas USA
>
>On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, "Busby Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> > Nobody is feathering nests Roger, and I hope you tell the 
> radsafers that the UK Member of Parliament Bill Wilson has made a 
> FORMAL complaint to the US Ambassador to the UK about your 
> libellous letters about these people and about me to my university 
> and to the peer review journals that publish my research.
> > Chris Busby
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Roger Helbig
> > Sent: Sat 09/04/2011 04:35
> > To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
> Mailing    List'
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute 
> Mangano andColleagues
> >
> > In Mangano, Sherman, Bertell and other's news release, which has 
> been widely
> > circulated amongst the "Green" community, they mention that they
have
> > published 27 medical journal articles and three books (so don't
question
> > these experts) - they do not mention the uselessness of "tooth
fairy"
> > project or that Bertell has actively claimed that the University of
Alaska
> > HAARP research facility has caused great earthquakes (her disciple
Leuren
> > Moret has made claim that HAARP is instrument of "tectonic 
> warfare" and that
> > elicits a chorus of guffaws from geologists who have been made aware
of
> > that) - what would really be useful is a compendium of each of these
> > articles and books (including the Chernboyl 1,000,000 dead claim
from NY
> > Academy of Sciences) and the articles, etc. that refute these -
Christopher
> > Busby should be added to the list - Moret cites Busby's claim 
> that Fukushima
> > will cause something like 400,000 additional cancer deaths in her
latest
> > claim that the northern 1/3 of Honshu is uninhabitable (guess the 
> people who
> > are beginning to rebuild there don't think much of Moret or don't
have
the
> > internet access - Moret, though, sadly has had fools fund trips 
> to Japan for
> > her before and she delights in free travel at other people's 
> expense and her
> > attorney friend Alfred Lambremont Webre, better known in the past
for
his
> > claimed encounters with extraterrestrial beings, is a shameless 
> and prolific
> > publicicst.   These people intend to feather their own nests well by
> > catering to those who want to forever ban nuclear power.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > Rest of article (that was posted earlier) snipped to focus solely on
the
> > cast of characters who have made the claims
> >
> > *Advisory Board                                  Research
Associates*
> >
> > Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH                  William Reid, MD
> > Samuel S. Epstein, MD                          Susanne Saltzman, MD
> > Agnes Reynolds, RN                             Janette Sherman, MD
> >
> > RPHP is a New York-based group of scientists and health
professionals
who
> > study health hazards of radiation exposure.  Its members have
published
27
> > medical journal articles and 7 books on the topic.



_______________________________________________
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: 6
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:09:13 -0500
From: Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <44565263-E0A8-44CF-AA6F-B8B200BF59D6 at iit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Ok, now that is just sharing way too much information.
I don't even want to think about how you started going to Jiffy-Lube for
colon cleansing. 

And some people think that those who visit Radon mines are nuts ...

I am going to have to go to Roswell to purchase a few tin foil hats. 

Can we end this thread now?

Thanks,

Jeff

Jeff Terry
Asst. Professor of Physics
Life Science Bldg Rm 166
Illinois Institute of Technology
3101 S. Dearborn St. 
Chicago IL 60616
630-252-9708
terryj at iit.edu




On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:

> monthly power colon cleanse at the Jiffy-Lube keep me healthy.



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:49:25 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201104110349.p3B3nK7r022311 at ame7.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

April 10

         Chris Busby at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

         He's a chemist who has a lot to say about ionizing radiation.

         Chris Busby at Junk Science Watch:

http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/

         Chris Busby's article at Counterpunch:

http://www.counterpunch.org/busby03282011.html

         He invokes Steve Wing and John Gofman.  'Nuff said.

Steven Dapra



At 08:53 AM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
>Nobody is feathering nests Roger, and I hope you tell the radsafers 
>that the UK Member of Parliament Bill Wilson has made a FORMAL 
>complaint to the US Ambassador to the UK about your libellous 
>letters about these people and about me to my university and to the 
>peer review journals that publish my research.
>Chris Busby
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Roger Helbig
>Sent: Sat 09/04/2011 04:35
>To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano 
>andColleagues
>
>In Mangano, Sherman, Bertell and other's news release, which has been
widely
>circulated amongst the "Green" community, they mention that they have
>published 27 medical journal articles and three books (so don't
question
>these experts) - they do not mention the uselessness of "tooth fairy"
>project or that Bertell has actively claimed that the University of
Alaska
>HAARP research facility has caused great earthquakes (her disciple
Leuren
>Moret has made claim that HAARP is instrument of "tectonic warfare" and
that
>elicits a chorus of guffaws from geologists who have been made aware of
>that) - what would really be useful is a compendium of each of these
>articles and books (including the Chernboyl 1,000,000 dead claim from
NY
>Academy of Sciences) and the articles, etc. that refute these -
Christopher
>Busby should be added to the list - Moret cites Busby's claim that
Fukushima
>will cause something like 400,000 additional cancer deaths in her
latest
>claim that the northern 1/3 of Honshu is uninhabitable (guess the
people
who
>are beginning to rebuild there don't think much of Moret or don't have
the
>internet access - Moret, though, sadly has had fools fund trips to
Japan
for
>her before and she delights in free travel at other people's expense
and
her
>attorney friend Alfred Lambremont Webre, better known in the past for
his
>claimed encounters with extraterrestrial beings, is a shameless and
prolific
>publicicst.   These people intend to feather their own nests well by
>catering to those who want to forever ban nuclear power.
>
>Roger
>
>Rest of article (that was posted earlier) snipped to focus solely on
the
>cast of characters who have made the claims
>
>*Advisory Board                                  Research Associates*
>
>Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH                  William Reid, MD
>Samuel S. Epstein, MD                          Susanne Saltzman, MD
>Agnes Reynolds, RN                             Janette Sherman, MD
>
>RPHP is a New York-based group of scientists and health professionals
who
>study health hazards of radiation exposure.  Its members have published
27
>medical journal articles and 7 books on the topic.




------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:49:20 +0100
From: "Busby Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>, 	"The International
Radiation
	Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	
<33024CCAFFB61C429DF9581DDE814DF40510B2FA at MAILSERVICE.ad.ulster.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

The piece at junksciencewatch is a lot of nonsense and vitriolic
misinformation believed by most to be the work of Richard Wakeford ex
head
of research at British Nuclear Fuels. Check out
www.chrisbusbyexposed.org
You people need to examine the evidence rather than writing knee jerk
(and
not very original) attacks. Your risk model has been dismantled by
epidemiology and by laboratory and theoretical science. There are
hundreds
of peer review papers which show this to be the case. Ad hominem attacks
on
me wont change that. In addition, cases are being won regularly in
courts on
the basis of the uselessness of the ICRP model which you believe in. You
can
even see Dr Jack Valentin, the editor and secretary of ICRP admitting
that
his risk model is wrong and cannot be used for internal exposures on
vimeo.com. Just google valentin+busby+vimeo for the whole video
proceedings
in Stockholm in 2009. I am happy to discuss all this with you on a
scientific level, but it seems that none of you are scientists in the
philosophical sense. I challenge you to show that your risk model is not
in
pieces. UNSCEAR and ICRP just cherry pick their supporting papers, all
the
A-Bomb stuff. They fail to cite any
 thing that shows they are wrong. Check out www.euradcom.org for the
Lesvos
Declaration. But you wont look at the research: you will just attack
everyone and say they are making a living out of scaring people. Or some
other attempt to deny what you must know in your hearts to be true.
If your most scientific analytical response is "nuff said" then better
get
back to the kindergarten or the local beer saloon where this is the
level of
discourse.
Best wishes
Chris Busby

Berlin


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
Sent: Mon 11/04/2011 04:49
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
andColleagues
 
April 10

         Chris Busby at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

         He's a chemist who has a lot to say about ionizing radiation.

         Chris Busby at Junk Science Watch:

http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/

         Chris Busby's article at Counterpunch:

http://www.counterpunch.org/busby03282011.html

         He invokes Steve Wing and John Gofman.  'Nuff said.

Steven Dapra



At 08:53 AM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
>Nobody is feathering nests Roger, and I hope you tell the radsafers 
>that the UK Member of Parliament Bill Wilson has made a FORMAL 
>complaint to the US Ambassador to the UK about your libellous 
>letters about these people and about me to my university and to the 
>peer review journals that publish my research.
>Chris Busby
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Roger Helbig
>Sent: Sat 09/04/2011 04:35
>To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano 
>andColleagues
>
>In Mangano, Sherman, Bertell and other's news release, which has been
widely
>circulated amongst the "Green" community, they mention that they have
>published 27 medical journal articles and three books (so don't
question
>these experts) - they do not mention the uselessness of "tooth fairy"
>project or that Bertell has actively claimed that the University of
Alaska
>HAARP research facility has caused great earthquakes (her disciple
Leuren
>Moret has made claim that HAARP is instrument of "tectonic warfare" and
that
>elicits a chorus of guffaws from geologists who have been made aware of
>that) - what would really be useful is a compendium of each of these
>articles and books (including the Chernboyl 1,000,000 dead claim from
NY
>Academy of Sciences) and the articles, etc. that refute these -
Christopher
>Busby should be added to the list - Moret cites Busby's claim that
Fukushima
>will cause something like 400,000 additional cancer deaths in her
latest
>claim that the northern 1/3 of Honshu is uninhabitable (guess the
people
who
>are beginning to rebuild there don't think much of Moret or don't have
the
>internet access - Moret, though, sadly has had fools fund trips to
Japan
for
>her before and she delights in free travel at other people's expense
and
her
>attorney friend Alfred Lambremont Webre, better known in the past for
his
>claimed encounters with extraterrestrial beings, is a shameless and
prolific
>publicicst.   These people intend to feather their own nests well by
>catering to those who want to forever ban nuclear power.
>
>Roger
>
>Rest of article (that was posted earlier) snipped to focus solely on
the
>cast of characters who have made the claims
>
>*Advisory Board                                  Research Associates*
>
>Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH                  William Reid, MD
>Samuel S. Epstein, MD                          Susanne Saltzman, MD
>Agnes Reynolds, RN                             Janette Sherman, MD
>
>RPHP is a New York-based group of scientists and health professionals
who
>study health hazards of radiation exposure.  Its members have published
27
>medical journal articles and 7 books on the topic.


_______________________________________________
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: 9
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:25:02 -0700
From: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at sfo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute	Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	Mailing	List'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <sig.5082b3d346.00b801cbf83b$1a0d4fb0$4e27ef10$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

I am attempting to determine if Member of the Scottish Parliament Dr
Bill
Wilson, has sent anyone any kind of letter.  His blog does attack my
advising him of the many falsehoods that my research into military and
other
records have exposed in the claims by Douglas Lind Rokke, a close Busby
associate.  The blog, though, did not cross the line of naming me.  I
thus
rather doubt that the Member of Scottish Parliament (not the UK
Parliament
as claimed by Busby) would resort to complaining to the Ambassador of
the
United States about my e-mailing him with pesky facts that he chooses to
ignore.

Roger W Helbig

MSP Dr Bill Wilson has Facebook page and blog - 

http://www.billwilsonmsp.com/

MSP Wilson is another one of those PhD types that throws the Dr around
like
he is an MD - now, I see that he is not - glad I decided to look up the
page
before sending this e-mail.

" researcher in ecology, studying topics as diverse as arable land
biodiversity, insect forest pests and small mammal ecology.  He
completed
his research career by spending a year writing training manuals for
university researchers.  After a gap year, travelling in South America,
he
moved into information technology.   In the years immediately preceding
his
election Bill was a statistician working for a public agency.  He
investigated aspects of education provision in Scotland."

He clearly has all the qualifications for being "expert" in depleted
uranium
- I wonder how the ICBUW got through to him - 


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby Chris
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 7:53 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List;
The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
andColleagues

Nobody is feathering nests Roger, and I hope you tell the radsafers that
the
UK Member of Parliament Bill Wilson has made a FORMAL complaint to the
US
Ambassador to the UK about your libellous letters about these people and
about me to my university and to the peer review journals that publish
my
research.
Chris Busby




------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <892006.79777.qm at web82703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1






________________________________
From: Ed Hiserodt <hise at sbcglobal.netAssuming it is not a conspiracy, to
what 
can we attribute this attitude?
Apathy?? Political correctness?? Nice Government Men shaking their heads
No?

Ed,? How about FEAR. Bad things can happen to those who get the wrong
answer
on 
government sponsored research. Beneficial radiation effects are
definately a

wrong answer.



From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Minnema

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM

To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart







Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to
address these allegations.



During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had
chartered
and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).? When I asked him about
why
it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the time
the
study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be
significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that nobody
was
being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and (2)
since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in
the
original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they should
publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had
already
gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the
publications.



Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.



Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the
scientific
method quite well.? The statistical tests one uses are based on the
hypothesis one is testing.? In this study they were trying to determine
if
there was "excess risk" with exposure.? I suspect that many things would
be
done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess
benefit."? Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the
conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other than
what the study was designed to detect.



I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other
copies circulating around.? But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm)
3-ring
binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.?
If
you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost
to
scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.



Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board





>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>

On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

> 

> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects
of

> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'

> 

> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I
know.

> 

> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:

>> Sandy,

>> 

>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear

>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were
paired
at

>> random.? "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the

>> non-nuclear."? How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under
these

>> circumstances?? But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality
Ratio of

>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.? Not what the study was

>> expected to show.? (And probably why it was not published for almost
20

>> years after analysis of the data.)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

> 

<snip>

_______________________________________________

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

Classification:? UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________
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 596, Issue 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu


More information about the RadSafe mailing list