Re: I'm get tired of it too, but...

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Hi Bill,

William Prestwich wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
>         I guess you answered your own question-the Miller data wasn't
> suppressed-you have had access to it to criticize it. What you are really

No. I mean suppressed. 

The original paper misrepresented/suppressed the data (obviously included in
error) to 'conclude' that the LNT is valid. This constitutes 'scientific
misconduct' by either/and type 1: 'fabrication', and type 2 'falsification.'
(Only 'plagiarism' doesn't apply.) This 'falsification' was initially by
authors/reviewers to get it pub'd, and by BEIR V, and NCRP, etc. as these
"scientists" suppressed the obvious data in order to defend the LNT in their
reports. Then the data was more egregiously suppressed by a paper to eliminate
the low-dose data that had been the subject of substantial 'debate.' It
explicitly and intentionally eliminates/suppresses the actual data in order to
falsely justify the LNT. This has the direct result of directly contributing
to defrauding the public of $100 Billions. It is achieved by rewarding
complicit "scientists," in this case at least Geoff Howe, at labs and
universities, in addition to the gov't agencies, that act to suppress the data
(in studies and reviews) in order reap the rewards of gov't agency funding.

> criticizing it seems to me, is the interpretation put on it.
>         As regards the poor statistics associated with the study of cases
> by individual doctors, this may be true. But the doses are higher than
> residential, so the risk estimates from the LNT would be also. 

True, but the LNT is not. And the data are generally sufficiently poor to
certainly result in conclusions that "the data are not sufficient to exclude
the LNT."

>In a large
> international study, I would have thought the statistics would be better
> than say the Hanford study for radiation workers. 

It's been done. Meta-analyses with $millions. If you don't know the doses with
any accuracy... junk results. Study differences are significant.  

>The feasibility would be
> worth examining by say the IAEA. 

They even suppressed data from their own Seville Conference! And have proven
their willingness to suppress in every meeting/conference I've been in with
them from '96 to Dec 99 in Airlie Virginia.

>         I am not sure if my original communication regarding Cohen's data
> was misleading. My intent was to indicate that my feeling is that it does
> show a valid discrepancy and that it is the responsibility of the entire
> community to either specifically explain the result within the LNT or to
> consider the hypothesis to be invalid for residentaal levels of radon
> exposure.
>         To have a debate requires conflicting opinions. It doesn't
> however, require casting aspersions.

No longer. Good scientists have been doing that for more than 50 years. The
better biology and medicine scientists have been saying that they were
'misrepresenting the data,' since the '50s - but mostly being silent as they
were left out of the rad protection targeting - or if the LNT were true,
radiologists would be mass murderers - and more "unnecessary radiation"
everyday in medicine than a year from either the 'nuke industry' or reduced by
$>5Billion/year in 'defense site cleanup' efforts). 

We tried to do that for 5 years with increasing responsiveness from some,
originally HPS and ANS, but with recent retaliation/retribution from the small
centrally-controlled ICRP/NCRP/BRER cabal. Critics are 'terminated': from
funds, programs, appointments, agency review committees, etc. (One Oak Ridge
geneticist is doing site cleanup calculations after documenting that the
genetic data showing a doubling dose or 1 Gy did not include cluster in
controls going back to 1951.) 

My personal knowledge started in 1973. A senior AEC official and a senior Oak
Ridge official reported on suppression of work and researchers who didn't go
along. This was confirmed by independent inquiries following that from
knowledgeable scientists; followed by the AEC termination of the Argonne LDR
study by Frigerio, which was continued by ERDA/DOE and NRC (it was a
licensing-driven study in response to the Calvert Cliffs decision on an
inadequate EIS). E.g., Charlie Willis, a senior HP NRC employee said on an NRC
transcript where he was presenting the HPS Position on the inability to
quantify risk below 5 cGy/y, 10 cGy lifetime, that removing K-40 from
potassium in 1958 (at Oak Ridge) caused the cells not function, but it was not
reported BECAUSE it contradicted the LNT. NRC refused to inquire. 

The Manhattan Project studies showed longer lives in animals exposed to
external radiation, or ingestion of uranium and other radionuclides. When
research was directed to fund "rad protection" the case for the need for
'research at ever lower doses was not on a 'slippery slope,' it was in
free-fall. E.g., see the report by Hugh Henry from Oak Ridge in the May 1961
Journal of the American Medical Association!

Robley Evans in the HPJ 1974 destroyed BEIR 1972 re radium dial painters. No
effect. In 1991, an EPA statement the Fed Register rejected using the radium
dial painter to set radium standards would require it to fit a straight line
to very non-linear data, or abandon the LNT, so it was rejected/suppressed.
Science has no effect. It's time to address the root of the problem. 

All of this, except my personal experience, is from the science/scientists.
It's on the site:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/

Both in the "Documents" section, 
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/index.html

e.g., Marshall Brucer, MD, founding father of nuclear medicine, 
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Brucer87HPSNL.html
from the July 1987 HPS Newsletter.

And in the "Data Document"
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/index.html

See esp. the "Conclusions" section, that goes beyond the "Data" n the other
sections:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-9/19list.html

There are voluminous materials since that aren't on the site yet, some which
has been dist here (at least abstracts), and some extended extracts.

You can get up to speed on the background (since curing botulism in Guinea
pigs using x-rays in 1896, confirmed in hundreds of experiments, including
many with extreme detrimental effects from suppressed background radiation). 

LDR immune system stimulation treats/cures cancer, in both the US and Japan,
as well as infections and wounds. Most recently last fall at Johns Hopkins.
Known for many years, the underlying biological factors have been known for a
long time, with more 'modern' results in the '80s and up to today.  (I'll send
a Mar 2000 abstract of a new study from Japan separately.)

There are dozens of 'scientists' complicit in scientific misconduct. The
ICRP/NCRP/BRER 'leaders' seem to have recently decided that, instead of a
constructive response to fix the historical problem under their leadership,
they will go to war for the LNT. There's still time for constructive response.

Consider the interesting question of: "Who will be seen as the 'communists'
and who will be the 'victims' among rad protectionists when the 'Berlin wall'
comes down :-)

Regards, Jim
Radiation, Science, and Health
muckerheide@mediaone.net
==============================

> Bill Prestwich
> McMaster University
> Hamilton, Ontario.
> 
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html