Re: Fw: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

John and Radsafers,

Happy New Year!



I believe 20002 will be happier for increasing recognition and treatment of

emdef, deficiency of electromagnetic wave deficiency of higher frequency than

the long-recognized need for sunshine.



I predict for 2002, that, as rickets and vitamin D deficiency took a long time

to be recognized (pallid ladies being popular just a century ago), and the risks

of hypercholesterolemia became apparent only in the current epidemic of heart

attacks, so, too, will emdef risks finally be recognized and treated -

susceptibility to cancers and infections, slower wound healing (including

surgical), and diminished longevity.



Selected studies? Repeatable experiments (for the above benefits of 0.5 -10

rad/year above usual background) are numerous and consistent, with both animals

and human blood indicators. Human cancer and mortality rates are consistently

better then, even with high dose rate. Only with selection of outliers and low

numbers, like Iowa (1 percentile, and that with incidence, not mortality) does

data in that dose range fail to confirm the SELECTIVELY NOT PUBLISHED

repudiation of LNT religion.



Why not published? As I wrote earlier, not Professor Cameron, the objective TAC

member, but Muckerheide has answered that political question:

"The establishment is clearly having to go so far to suppress data and research,

which shows that they know precisely the results that the biology literature

demonstrates conclusively, but must be suppressed on behalf of their funding

agencies."



I seem to disagree with Muckerheide on the reason for suppressing publication.

Instead of the implied conscious venality, I believe the explanation is often in

rationalization. I have very high regard for the integrity of many LNT

proponents, while I disagree profoundly with their inferences from LNT. As

indicated above,  I believe that elimination of low doses of harmful substances

(like all medicines in high dose) would damage society. "Rationalization [of

eating habits]  is unbelievably powerful", confessed one of the brightest, most

honest scientists I have ever known.



Our wishful thinking and unconscious selection of data does require a truly

objective experiment, as Cameron stated in his private reponse to us, typically

not wanting to publicize his excellent commentary by posting, yet.



It will be a truly happy New Year for HPs, I predict.

Howard Long



jenday1 wrote:



> Howard,

> I have contacted Dr. Cameron, but he could not answer the relevant question

> about why this report was not reviewed and published.  I have heard the

> charges against Arthur Upton, but not have heard his comments.  As NCRP 136

> points out, there are a number of contradictory studies.   If you believe in

> hormesis, you will find valid studies.  If you believe in LNT, you will find

> valid studies.  Look at the studies yourself.  All the studies, not just the

> ones that appear on the RSH Web site.

>

> I believe that radiation is inconsequential at the levels below at which we

> were are regulating them.  I do object to people making wild claims of

> benefits when it can only be proved in selected studies.

>

> -- John

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>

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

> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:10 PM

> Subject: Re: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice

>

> John,

> I hope you will contact John Cameron, one of 8 on Upton's committee, after

> reading his discussion at http://www.aps.org/units/fps/oct01/a5oct01.html.

>

> Happy Holidays,

> Howard Long

> . . .



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

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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/