[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Shipyard workers and references
You mean like:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-3/2/Rev2%201321da53.html
And when background radiation is suppressed, organisms grow more slowly,
are debilitated, and die prematurely. When re-exposed to background
radiation, or supplemental radiation sources are added to the shielded
organisms, they recover and proliferate!
The data always show beneficial effects, even essential to biological
functions, at low doses/dose rates. Except for people that are
"allergic" to objective consideration of data! :-)
Regards, Jim
============
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack_Earley@rl.gov
Sent: Thu 03-Jan-02 8:07 PM
To: Jim Muckerheide; Jack_Earley@rl.gov; muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET;
jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: Shipyard workers and references
Maybe so--I was somewhat concerned about the repercussions from
including it back then (about '76 or '77). But I also seem to recall
that the info it came from included studies that showed that paramecia
exposed to radiation lived longer than those that were unexposed.
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Muckerheide [mailto:jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:50 PM
To: Jack_Earley@rl.gov; muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET; jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM;
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Shipyard workers and references
Hi Jack,
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV
I was conducting rad. training in the Navy in the 70s, and part of the
bio.
effects training included an estimate that each rem of radiation would
statistically shorten your lifespan by 1 day.
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
<Maybe better to call it "Indoctrination" :-) >
Regards, Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 9:05 PM
To: jenday1; RADSAFE
Subject: Re: Shipyard workers and references
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.
************************************************************************
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/