Re: Hormesis?

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Mr. Hinks,

See the home page and brochure, the genesis of the group of many of the
world's knowledgeable radiobiologists,  medical practitioners, and analysts,
and therefore of the site, was to "compile representative data that BEIR V
chose to ignore," and actively suppressed by ICRP/NCRP/UNSCEAR/BRER (with
documentation)., driven by the gov't rad protection agencies and the
industry that profits from the expenditure of $10 Billions per year of
completely wasted funds. We are not the gov't-funded agencies responsible to
conduct a balanced assessment of the data.  We are making the prima facie
case that such an assessment has not been done, and those that control that
process do so intentionally.  (It's interesting and telling that many people
over the last 6 years have said "you can't say they are biased," but when we
ask for people to comment on gov't rules or NCRP or BEIR reports by
presenting the credible science that they know exists, the same people say:
"it's not worth my time and effort, we know the answer they will come out
with."  When a position on committees and gov't contracts come up, they say:
"they have already determined who/what they want" so it's not worth my time
to even try to contribute.

See, e.g., our statements at the BRPS Conference:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/BRPS_Docs/index.html
 especially the "RSH Statement of Principles"  (and "the Other Side")

Now, consider that the BRPS organizers who set the conference up, and the
rad-pro leaders who ran it (with 2-3 people from the "extremes," although
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth-UK couldn't find anything to disagree
with), and they ran the program with a pre-ordained conclusion.  They then
falsely claim that there was a "consensus" in their report that was
committed to support (the massive funding for)  rad-protectionism as we know
and love it (with one national leader hissing at me at one point "we know
what you want; you want to kill the golden goose." )
 
When I made a very brief, but strong comment to object to the
misrepresentation of the effort and the lack of consideration of contrary
views at a special session on the BRPS Report by the organizers at IRPA-10
in Hiroshima last May, there was an explosive round of applause - by the
real people that work in radiation protection.  It was quite a shock to
Roger Clarke,  Abel Gonzalez, Charlie Meinhold, and others.  As on the
radsafe list, there are very many people in the "business" who know that the
rules are built on sand (or more accurately on air, and hot air at that :-)
Many fear to speak out in an open forum that includes funding agency people,
etc.  

See also our EPA comments on their 'radionuclides in water' rulemaking, and
the letters to DOE about the false claims that AEC/DOE workers have been
harmed by ionizing radiation, when in all substantial studies, moderate-dose
workers have lower cancer and all-cause mortality than no- o low-dose
workers (no phony "healthy worker effect."):
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Correspondence/index.htm

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
===========================


> Mr. Muckerheide,
> 
> I read many of your articles at your site. The site just looks so
> non-balanced in its views. The majority of the references I read came from
> the same lab.
> 
> I am trying to understand articles that say an alpha particle does not even
> need to hit the cell to cause damage, such as the studies at this site from
> Los Alamos.  I will read the latest article you sent.
> 
> http://www.radon.com/radon/radon_links.html
> 
> If Dr. Cohen is not saying that alpha particle radiation is good for you,
> then why does he find less lung cancer in parts of the counrty with high
> radon?  If alpha particle rad to the lung is not important, what do you
> think is?  What pararmeters are you talking about.  I am not an engineer
> like you.
> 
> I am just trying to figure this out.
> 
> Thank-you - Harry
> 
> harryhinks@hotmail.com
> 
> 
>> From: Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>
>> Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>> Subject: Re: Hormesis?
>> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:50:41 -0600 (CST)
>> 
>> Why bother.  You didn't read the last refs you requested.  And Bernie made
>> clear that's not what he's saying.  (And why do you assume alpha rad to the
>> lung is the important parameter?)
>> 
>> Anyway, for a general perspective, see the following paper by Tony Brooks
>> and Marv Frazier, denizens of the establishment which will be more to your
>> liking :-)
>> http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-2/6/3/Rev%202%201263br&fr93.html
>> 
>> Regards, Jim
>> muckerheide@mediaone.net
>> ==========================
>> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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