Who's against DOE's compensation program?

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@cpcug.org>]

Some of us have hoped that the medical benefits of low-dose radiation
immunotherapy will encourage cancer sufferers to support our efforts to curb
the demonizing of any amount of radiation.  Such patients could prove to be
a large and vocal ally.

Now another voice is beginning to emerge: war veterans.  Today's Washington
Post carries a letter ending with the following words:  "I question the
judgment of anyone who rates harm caused by working in a nuclear weapons
plant as more important than a bullet from an enemy's gun."

Right on, soldier!  Get your buddies to chime in.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the nuclear industry were saved by such
"disinterested parties," after its own members refuse to get invovled?
(Today I received the ANS newsletter "Reactions."  It had a story about how
x-rays are being used to study in exquisite detail the damage caused by
x-rays to DNA in cells unprotected by an immune system.  Another story tells
how radioisotopes are used to harden arteries.  But not a word about the use
of whole-body x-radiation to stimulate the body's defenses, to treat cancer.
Many papers have described this work at national and international ANS
meetings, but only the damaging effects of radiation on tissue are discussed
(albeit that the hardening of the arteries has a beneficial effect on the
patient).  How can the public know these things if we don't tell them?

Ted Rockwell


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