Re: Two DU articles with a different slant

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Franz and radsafers,

Although Mr. Pyles provided the article, we have no reason to believe that
he has poor motives rather than reasonable concerns in the face of a
substantial (if manufactured) "controversy."  The responses to Mr. Pyles are
informative and respond to the concern.

But, more importantly, you must note that the article (disinformation) is
from gov't researcher Dudley Goodhead, and others of like motives, paragons
of the kind used by NCRP, ICRP, UNSCEAR, and others, to perform the mission
of maintaining "the golden goose" (as said to me by the head of a national
radiation protection racket - er, program) to capture $100s Billions of
purely wasted public funds, to the massive financial benefit of the
industry.   Those organizations provide Goodhead and his brethren (and
sithren? :-) a great mantle of cover and credibility, and financial and
institutional rewards.

Now will you send (or perhaps encourage the HPS to send) such responses to
Dr. Goodhead and his sponsors?

It was easy to guess that Goodhead was one of the "unamed experts" that
instigated the journalists a week or so ago.

The entire rad protection foundation rests on just this kind of
misinformation/disinformation by the gov't agencies' well-funded agents, who
are used to instigate the media and concerned citizens such as Mr. Pyles,
for their own benefit.  Which you know if you have reviewed a small fraction
of the scientific literature that we have provided (which is a small
fraction of the literature that exists) that BEIR V doesn't consider, and
critical reviews of the sources that BEIR V (ICRP, NCRP, et al.) claim to
show that an LNT dose-response is possible (e.g., the Cardis et al. IARC -
gov't funded - misrepresentation of the worker data to claim support for the
LNT.  See the plot of the data by Schillaci at LANL:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Figures/1-2/2/1/Schillaci96F7-GIF.html
  (note the single data point in one cancer for doses >40 rem in dozens of
endpoints is 6 deaths with 2.5 expected, and that the error bars are 1 SD!?
and obviously overlap zero at 95% CI - and Dr. Schillaci is much kinder than
others, but then again he works for the funding agency, DOE!? :-)

Note yet again that, blaming the media for reporting the crap that is
promulgated by our annointed officials for their own greedy is
inappropriate.  You need to blame the perpetrators,  the small cabal of the
radiation gestapo, starting with EPA, NRC, and DOE,  and IAEA and its
minions.

Note also that this article is not substantively different than the paper in
the Am J Radiol by David Brenner, Eric Hall, et al., with their NCRP etc.
affiliations and mission, using the "conservative LNT used for radiation
protection purposes"  for similar disinformation to the radiobiologically
uninformed radiologists to claim that 500 children could die from cancer due
to their assumptions of the doses from CT in the US.

You need to question these people and programs more than concerned citizens
or the media!
 
Thanks.

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
Radiation, Science, and Health
Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at WPI
============================================

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: NECNP <necnp@necnp.org>
> An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Datum: Dienstag, 23. Jänner 2001 16:50
> Betreff: Two DU articles with a different slant
> 
> 
>> I usually just lurk on this list, but I thought that the following articles
>> from the UK might give you all some food for thought.  Dave Pyles
> 
> 
> Sorry, I do not get the sense of these articles or why you posted them (of
> course I do not want to exercise censorship for postings, I just am
> curious). The claims are not new, not new is that the reasoning that one
> alpha-particle   w i l l   cause cancer is something which even the (wo)man
> from the street will understand as nonsense, when you will explain to him or
> her (sorry - her or him) that the body is loaded with all kind of
> radioactive stuff, ranging from K-40, C-14, T to radium, thorium, daughter
> products which exceeds anything that could be incorporated from depleted
> uranium in the Gulf region or Kosovo by orders of magnitude and that mankind
> would have vanished because of cancer since millions of years, if the claim
> of "one alpha is cancer" would be true. I do not want to repeat arguments,
> look at the
> other relevant postings. The facts about depleted uranium and similar stuff
> has been extensively discussed on RADSAFE, please read it. I do not believe
> that anything else has to be added.
> 
>> 
>> New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
>> P. O. Box 545
>> Brattleboro VT 05302-0545
> 
> This is according to the web site cited clearly an antinuclear organisation.
> I have not wasted my time to go through the web site further than the
> headlines. Are you in the footsteps of Norman? I will not engage in such
> discussions again, because it would be a waste of time. I would recommend to
> others not to respond to these provocations.
> 
> Or maybe I just am on the way to become paranoid because of being fed with
> all that stuff by our mass media?
> 
> Franz

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