Re: Shipyard workers and references

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

 From: "jenday1" <jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>



> Ted,

> Did the results not agree with the LNT, or was it a poorly study?  The

> latter is the criticism I heard.

Only after the fact; documented disinformation (for the gullible?)



>It makes no sense that if radiation caused

> cancer deaths, and the AEC(?) and Navy wanted to set the record straight,

> why would they want to bury the report?



Same reason you do. Defeating LNT means changing rules and giving up a gravy

train of funding!



>Do you think the Navy and DOE want to pay people for radiation-induced cancers?

Small price to keep the $$100s Millions TAXPAYER  funds flowing.



> That is certainly not the Navy I served in.

Seems unlikely "the Navy" figured you had a "need to know."



>They would want to proclaim to the world that their program

> protected rather than harmed the workers.



See study results that show large increases in mesothelioma from asbestos in

nuke and non-nuke workers!  People involved report that the Navy didn't want

that out (and not up to the Navy Nuke people!)



> Even if did not support the LNT, the fact that radiation-induced cancers

> could be identified would do more damage, both finacially and politically.

> Your arguement for suppression seems backwards.

Right. But they're not trying to destroy their programs. You need a more

comprehensive and objective view; and consider the info that program

participants have provided!



Jim

 

> 

> --John

> 

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD 20715-2024

> jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

> 

> 

> Ted Rockwell wrote:

> 

> The reason that the Nuclear Shipyard Study was undertaken was in response to

> the earlier, partial and poorly run studies you cited.  A great splash was

> made in the Boston papers about cancer among the shipyard workers.  So the

> Atomic Energy Commission and the Navy determined to do it right.  It was

> assigned to the Epidemiology School at Johns Hopkins, Upton was put in

> charge of the Technical Advisory Panel with other top experts in the field,

> and they met periodically throughout the long period of the study, to make

> it the best possible study of this large and carefully monitored population.

> And it was.  The only problem was that it did not give the expected (LNT)

> answer.  So they tried to bury it.

> 

> . . .

> 

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.