[ RadSafe ] Sternglass -Galileo Parallel :-) RE: Drawing the line between science > andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought) >

Mon Oct 10 03:15:53 CDT 2011

I was hoping for rather a longer sabbatical Chris!

Read the Fallujah paper, and it appears to be a classic case of I have "found" an "effect" lets tie it to this cause.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:13 AM
To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sternglass -Galileo Parallel :-) RE: Drawing the line between science > andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought) >

If you look at the studies of Thorotrast and Radium exposures, they always concentrate on cancer as an end point. In those few studies where you can see the death rate of the exposed cohorts (in particular the Japanese studies by Mori et al) it is clear that the exposed die early of a wide range of non cancer illnesses, and therefore do not die of cancer so the end point numbers are not elevated excessively. In Mori et al, the women Ra patients lost almost 20 years of life realtive to the japanese population survival curves. The point was made by JF Loutit, Director of the Medical Research Council in 1971 that the Radiums  destroy the immune system. But, of course, the same non specific ageing has been seen in all irradiated populations, starting with the American Radiologists and through to the Chernobyl exposed and even the Hiroshima exposed suffer significantly higher rates of ill health than controls.
When I say he was generally correct I ask you to look at the data. You can find it in the R Whyte BMJ paper I cited. Have any of you even looked?
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Stewart Farber
Sent: Mon 10/10/2011 00:11
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing    List'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sternglass -Galileo Parallel :-) RE: Drawing the line between science >    andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought) >

John Ahlquist writes below:
Right after Moeller read the statement, I heard Sternglass sigh "Now I know how Galileo felt."

John Ahlquist
==================
Hello everyone.

Regarding Sternglass & Galileo:
In 1994, I had the distinct [mis]fortune to speak immediately after Ernest Sternglass as one of two invited speakers at an annual meeting of a group called the National Association of Atomic Veterans [NAAV] in Washington, DC.
Most of the people at this meeting are elderly vets on the VA's Ionizing Radiating Registry in light of their having been involved in military service which exposed them to ionizing radiation in certain defined categories during the Cold War or at the end of WWII.

Seeing Sternglass in action before a gullible group of "atomic vets" was quite astounding. His actions were quite reprehensible, and would only have prompted extreme fear and additional anxiety among the audience. I assume Sternglass thought everyone in the audience would fully buy into his nonsense without question,  since he seemed to revel in saying such extreme things and was on such a roll.  I only wish I had recorded his "speech". His "talk" was a hard act to follow.

I had been invited by NAAV to speak  since I'd brought attention in a Letter-to-the-Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine to the issue of a carefully designed human radiation experiment [Project X-434 --Nasal Radium Irradiation -NRI] conducted by the Navy on about 800 Submariners at the end of WWII. The goal of this experiment was to determine NRI efficacy on shrinking enlarged adenoids, by delivering about 2,000 rads [ 20 Gy] bilaterally at the opening of each Eustachian tube to facilitate pressure equalization during rapid pressure changes experienced by Submariners in the diesel subs of the day in certain operations.

[ see: Farber, S., and Ducatman, A.M., "Radium Exposure in U.S. Military Personnel, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 326, No. 1, pp. 71-72, Jan. 2, 1992 ]
 - My letter describes the nasal radium procedure and brought to the attention of the medical and scientific communities information that, during the time it was in vogue,  an estimated 5,000 treated submariners faced an elevated risk for a variety health problems (including various malignant head and neck tumors, including brain cancers, and thyroid problems: very elevated rates of Graves disorder) based on epidemiological studies cited.
It called for a central registry and the establishment of a "formal program for the identification and medical surveillance of such people" by the US Navy. The Navy (in its reply published with my letter) wrote the radium treated vets had a "RIGHT TO PRIVACY [emphasis added]" not a "right to know"
What a change to the "right to know" concept!! The Navy spokesperson claimed the risks of NRI were "relatively small" eqyuvakebt to pesticides on apples, and why should they do anything since a huge population of children was treated with NRI after WWII vs. the Navy having used it on only a few thousand men. The Navy clearly felt that a few thousand rads [ 20 Sv ] to the nasopharynx of 5,000 vets was as trivial a risk as an apple a day to keep the oncologist away.

Subsequent to the letter above, and in the context of the "DOE Human Radiation Openness Initiative" begun in early 1994, I garnered a great deal of attention for the NRI issue and prompted a Senate Hearing on the subject, and later forced a CDC Workshop on the subject.

To read more about NRI, the one Human Radiation Experiment judged to have the highest cancer mortality risk by a wide margin of any of the 4,000 Human radiation experiments [greatly exceeding the Pu injectees], reviewed by President Clinton's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments [ACHRE] see:
http://www.farber.info/reap/default.htm
But, I greatly digress..
==========================

In any case, Sternglass in his 1994 talk at the NAAV meeting which I witnessed delivered what can only be describe as an inflammatory, totally unprofessional,  scientific rant unconnected with any scientific reality. It was extreme fear-mongering of the type we've witnessed many times from other anti-nuclear activists, who will say anything to keep their distortions or outright falsehoods repeated by various media, so gullible people believe them.

Sternglass blamed radiation exposure for every disorder imaginable, including claiming that fallout from open air nuclear bomb testing was responsible for the aids virus having developed in Africa and then spreading around the world. He greatly misrepresented, or came up with impossible radiation exposure pathways,  and exaggerated the scientific realities of radiation risks. He cynically did his best to take advantage of the distrust and fears that "atomic" veterans had who had received some radiation exposure in the course of their service. It's easy to see why someone like Busby, even with the benefit of hindsight, can refer to Sternglass with admiration for Sternglass having supposedly found increased infant mortality downwind of EVERY nuclear plant in the US. When called to account on this nonsense on Radsafe, Busby was still willing to comment that Sternglass is "generally correct" in his assertions.

If Sternglass could compare himself to Galileo at the HPS Meeting discussion in 1971, he'd have to be totally out of touch with reality at the time. 23 years later in 1994 at NAAV, he was still trying to manipulate any audience he could find that would listen to his foolishness.

On last bit of Sternglass trivia that is good for a laugh. I once saw a summary of radioactive discharges tabulated by Sternglass while he was still RSO for the Univ. Pittsburg Hospitals.  I recall his report showed his Hospital discharged more I-131 into the sewers of Pittsburg than any nuclear plant in early 1970s.

Ernest: Would Galileo allow so much I-131 to be discharged into the environment?

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
SAFarber at optonline.net

===============

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of John Ahlquist
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 3:46 PM
To: Radsafe
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science > andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought) >

I was at the 1971 HPS meeting at the Waldorf Astoria in NYC when this issue was hot.  There was a lot of press there for the Sternglass show.  I addition to the excellent statement below read by Dade Moeller, there was a presentation showing how Sternglass had cherry picked data on infant problems.  He did a study of

data in California but the period he used coincided with an outbreak  of rubella {German measles] which causes at least a 20% chance  of damage to the fetus if a
woman is infected early in pregnancy.   The years before and after this
outbreak, things were normal.

Right after Moeller read the statement, I heard Sternglass sigh "Now I know how Galileo felt."

John Ahlquist

From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Bob Cherry
> Sent: Thu 06/10/2011 04:40
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science
> andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
>
> The December 1996 issue of the HPS Newsletter refers to an even
> earlier
> issue:
>
> Every issue of the HPS Newsletter seems to have information important
> enough to reference. The August
> 1971 issue is no exception. An exceptional event was described in that
> issue. After Ernest Sternglass presented a paper on an epidemiological
> study describing health effects from nuclear facilities discharges,
> Dade Moeller, President-Elect, read a statement that had been signed
> by Claire Palmiter, President. and all 13 past presidents of the
> Society.
>
> In part. it stated that Sternglass had presented papers in which he
> associates an increase in infant mortality with low levels of
> radiation exposure ... His allegations made in several forms, have in
> each instance been ana.
> lyzed by scientists, physicians, and biostatisticians in the federal
> government, in individual states that have been involved in his
> reports. and by qualified scientists in other countries. . Without
> exception, these agencies and scientists have concluded that Dr.
> Sternglass' arguments are not substantiated by the data he presents.
> The United States Public Health Service, the Environmental Protection
> Agency, the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois
> have issued formal reports in rebuttal of Dr. Sternglass' arguments.
>
> Again. in spite of the efforts by the most respected authorities to
> prevent the widespread broadcasting of Sternglass' flawed perceptions,
> Sternglass was sought for comments by the media and his story told
> countless times.
> The public was presented with fearful misinformation.
> Many members of the Society wanted stronger efforts to counter
> erroneous information, but our story was not considered newsworthy by
> the media.
>
> --from Bob C
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

________________________________

The contents of this email, including all related responses, files and attachments transmitted with it (collectively referred to as “this Email”), are intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom/which they are addressed, and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. This Email may not be disclosed or forwarded to anyone else without authorization from the originator of this Email. If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your system. Please note that the views or opinions presented in this Email are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of Saudi Aramco. The recipient should check this Email and any attachments for the presence of any viruses. Saudi Aramco accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus/error transmitted by this Email.