[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hormesis & Vested Interests
Ruth,
You are absolutely correct. Basically, it is all about money. Those in
the radiation "priesthood"
(i.e. ICRP, NCRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR, etc.---the "LNT Mafia") generally make
their livings in the business and evaluating the effects of low-level
radiation exposures and developing standards for such exposure. Because of
inordinate levels of concern regarding radiation effects, public and
government organizations have been more than willing to provide
substantial financial support for these activities.
Absent the general belief that LL rad effects are harmful, this support
would likely dry up and the priesthood would have to seek jobs in other
areas. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that they would abandon LNT, much
less accept the legitimacy of hormesis. Also, it would be rather traumatic
for them to concede that the concepts that they have embraced for so many
years are bogus. The ability of the human mind to rationalize is
essentially boundless. Unless, by some miracle, there is a dramatic change
in human nature, I doubt that policies on low-level radiation will change.
jjcohen@prodigy.net
----- Original Message -----
From: ruth_weiner <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Experimental Proof of Hormesis
> What's this "vested interest" accusation about? Let me go on record here
on
> RADSAFE:
>
> "conflict of interest" means money and only money; that is, if I am paid a
> fee to make an analysis for the Yucca Mountain Project, I would have a
> conflict of interest if I were also paid a fee to critique the project.
If,
> on the other hand, I go of my own volition to a public meeting,or submit a
> comment, asking that the FFTF not be shut down, I have no conflict of
> itnerest at all, since I am not paid for any activity that has anything to
> do with FFTF.
>
> The applicable definition of "vested interest" (from Webster's) is "a
> special concern in maintaining or influencing a condition or arrangement
or
> action." I certainly have a vested interest in ideas I have developed or
> agree with, and I expect Fritz Seiler also has. That doesn't mean we can't
> be convinced to change our minds, but there's nothing wrong with having a
> vested interest in an idea.
>
> Ruth Weiner
> ruth_weiner@msn.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Hinks <harryhinks@hotmail.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Experimental Proof of Hormesis
>
>
> >Mr. Seiller,
> >
> >I don't understand your statements below. In postings in the archives on
> >this subject, I notice even Dr. Cohen does not agree with you. How do
you
> >expect other people with no vested interest?
> >
> >Harry Hinks
> >harryhinks@hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@nmia.com>
> >>Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> >>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> >>Subject: Experimental Proof of Hormesis
> >>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:18:38 -0600 (CST)
> >>
> >>Hi All,
> >>
> >>The current thread on hormesis on RADSAFE seems to imply that there is
> >>no valid experimental confirmation. Well, that is what the Linear Mafia
> >>wants you to think! Fortunately, wanting it does not make it so. That
> >>is why that same Linear Mafia has hurled all kinds of 'bombs' at the
> >>Shipyard worker study and at Bernie Cohen's study of the Radon/Lung
> >>cancer mortality correlation.
> >>
> >>On their own merits, both experiments strongly contradict the Linear
> >>No-threshold (LNT) Model. Against the Shipyard worker study, there are
> >>nothing except handwaving arguments without solid numerical foundation.
> >>Against Bernie's measurements there are a number of papers with
> >>arguments using non-numerical claims of confounding factors resulting in
> >>the "Ecological Fallacy". According to the Mafia, that fallacy makes the
> >>data useless for risk assessment purposes.
> >>
> >>Joe Alvarez and I have shown the fallacy argument to be invalid, and the
> >>raw Cohen data to be the only scientific basis for a valid risk
> >>assessment. We made our case in a paper now published as a
> >>'Perspective' in the December issue of HERA:
> >>
> >>F.A. Seiler and J.L. Alvarez ,"Is the 'Ecological Fallacy" a
> >>Fallacy?" Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, vol. 6,
> >>921-941 (2000).
> >>
> >>By demonstrating that the use of the raw Cohen data is appropriate,
> >>we have also demonstrated that the dose-effect model for human exposure
> >>to radon and its daughters is U-shaped and is thus NONLINEAR. Also, and
> >>contrary to Mafia claims, all the hormetic looking data in the
> >>voluminous collections of such data can now be used as such, if the
> >>Assumption of Equivalent Populations (definition given in paper) can be
> >>made.
> >>
> >>Let's face facts, hormesis is back; and this time, it is back to stay!
> >>
> >>Have a fun weekend,
> >>
> >>Fritz
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >> " The American Republic will endure until the day Congress
> >> discovers that it can bribe the Public with the Public's money."
> >> Alexis de Tocqueville
> >> Democracy in America
> >>
> >>***************************
> >>
> >>Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
> >>Sigma Five Consulting
> >>P.O. Box 1709
> >>Los Lunas, NM 87031, USA
> >>Tel. 505-866-5193
> >>Fax. 505-866-5197
> >>e-mail: faseiler@nmia.com
> >>
> >>***************************
> >>
> >>
> >>************************************************************************
> >>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html