[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LNT



 

Thank you for the Oak Ridger article of 1989
on Radioactive Curative Devices and Spas , Jim, I read it.

Rauwolfia (reserpine) was our best hypertension medicine in the '50s.
It was the Hindu snakeroot herb used for 2,000 years.
Dosage was the problem with snakeroot and
dosage is the problem with radiation.

Howard Long

Jim Muckerheide wrote:

Note that Luckey's literature shows evidence for benefit 106 years ago!
:-)  Or the U-ore or Ra-ore pads from the '20s-'30s, or as recent as the
'60s. See Paul Frames "quack cures' page at:
http://www.orau.com/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm

In the '20s low dose radiation (to a few hundred rad) stopped gangrene
in its tracks, virtually eliminating amputations and death when not
advanced to terminal conditions.

Regards, Jim
=========

        -----Original Message-----
        From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
        Sent: Tue 15-Jan-02 1:42 PM
        To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
        Cc: lescrable@HOTMAIL.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
        Subject: Re: LNT
 

        "-hormetic range usually <10mSv/d or <50cSv acute exposure for
mammals-."
        TD Luckey Radiation Hormesis CRC Press, 1990 p42.

        Thus up to half the dose giving symptoms, there was evidence for
benefit 12 years ago. Cameron proposes that we enable deprived areas to
supplement radiation, at least up to the mountain state background, like
the nuclear shipyard workers with less cancer (doubling gulf coast
background).

        How about offering 10 x usual US background radiation, like
those sections of Ramisar, Iran with best lymphocyte activation? Of
course accidental overdose must be carefully avoided, as it is in spent
fuel transit in England.

        Howard Long

        RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:

                At least for now I would go with the HPS statement that
at less than 1 rem/year (I am not sure of this number)  the cancer risk
should be treated as a distribution whose lower end is zero (those are
not the exact words -- I am paraphrasing from memory).

                What strikes me as ridiculous is multplying a population
dose of, say, 15 mrem/year (the EPA air standard) by 0.0005 and saying
that an individual exposed to this has one chance in 100,000 (it's
actually 7.5E-6) of a "latent cancer fatality" from that exposure.  Even
worse, that in an urban population of a million persons with an average
exposure of 15 mrem, there will be 7.5 "latent cancer fatalities"
attributable to that exposure.  It's the blind application of a linear
extrapolation to zero that is simplistic and I think misleading.

                The literature, including Health Physics, increasingly
shows evidence of thresholds (and I am not talking about Bernie Cohen's
papers).  One recent article on the atom bomb survivors seemed to show a
threshold for cancer of 20 Gy!  I am not touting this -- I think we need
to keep studying this and come up with the same kind of completely
credible threshold that EPA has set for, for example, the common air
pollutants.

                Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
                ruthweiner@aol.com

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name: winmail.dat
   winmail.dat    Type: Movie Clip (MPEG) (application/x-unknown-content-type-MPEGFile)
              Encoding: base64