[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Fw: Fw: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice
Great Howard,
UV dose-response is "hormesis" personified. Not only are the health
effects clearly highly positive at low doses and negative at higher
doses AND at doses that suppress background levels, but there are
volumes of data showing the positive cellular and
immunological/molecular responses at low dose exposures, with reversed
effects at higher doses, equivalent to the immunological responses of
IR!
Regards, Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
Gotcha, John!
Indeed, UV- (B? NOT the frequency blocked by ozone) is associated with
melanoma."Cases were more likely to burn than tan, - more moles, - and
had less
sun exposure prior to diagnosis." (LLNLMelanoma Study).
However, rickets, a bone malformation from deficient vitamin D, is
well-known
to be prevented or cured by sunlight. This seems to refute the LNT for
part of
the spectrum which includes x -and gamma rays!
Also, "Radiation deficiency" would be a better term than emdef, since
other
ionizing radiation is intended for inclusion.
Howard Long
jenday1 wrote:
> Howard,
> I am not sure if you were kidding about the emdef, but I would ask you
first
> to reconcile the fact that UV radiation, which falls into your
> "electromagnetic wave deficiency of higher frequency than the
> long-recognized need for sunshine," is good for you considering the
risks of
> melanoma? See http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/tanning.html Or are you
excluding UV
> from your emdef?
>
> Also, I would be careful about dealing with Jim Muckerheide. He does
take
> lightly people who disagree with him.
>
> Happy New Year to you, also.
> -- John
>
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> 3050 Traymore Lane
> Bowie, MD 20715-2024
> jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>
> To: "jenday1" <jenday1@email.msn.com>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 12:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice
>
> 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.
> . . .
************************************************************************
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/