Re: ARTICLE: Fallout likely caused 15,000 deaths

[maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>]

Sent following to USA Today:

++++++++++++++++++++

This article was very entertaining science fiction which I did not

expect to find in USA Today. You should do at least cursory check of the

arithmetic - if thousands of deaths resulted from bomb test fallout,

then all of the world's deaths would have to be attributed to fallout.

Check the fallout radioactivity compared with normal background

radiation which always occurs regardless of bomb test fallout. Great

laugh! Nobody dies from anything else!

+++++++++++++++++++++

I was pilfering the thrust of Jaro's calculations of  fallout "deaths"

posted a couple days ago. Thanks Jaro and hope I've not done violence to

your posted view....

Cheers,

Maury Siskel       maury@webtexas.com

=====================================

Jim Muckerheide wrote:



>  Ruth,I wrote the following:

>

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

>      From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM [mailto:RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

>

>      Thank you , Don.  Have you (or anyone) written this to USA

>      Today?

>

>      Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

>      ruthweiner@aol.com

>

> Editors, Your fallout radiation mortality article shows that you are

> being used to promulgate a fraud. If the subject small fallout doses

> could cause adverse health effects, much less deaths, millions of

> people exposed to higher background radiation doses (e.g., more than

> 500 mrem per year) would have higher mortality than in the millions of

> people exposed to low background radiation (e.g., less than 100 mrem

> per year.) Actual data show, if anything, the opposite results. Also,

> hundreds of millions of people that have had diagnostic, and some

> moderate levels of therapeutic, radiation would have excess mortality.

> This is not true, even though it is true that people exposed to high

> doses have adverse effects and excess deaths. The United Nations

> Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has

> had to report that there are no deaths in the public even from the

> Chernobyl accident, though the surrounding population was not

> evacuated. Now, 16 years later, there is only a very small increase in

> the number of thyroid cancers primarily in persons who were children

> less than about 7 years old at the time of the accident, with no

> related mortality reported. This was confirmed in a June 2001 meeting

> that included the World Health Organization (WHO) and the affected

> countries. Recently, the UNSCEAR, WHO conclusions were confirmed in a

> report including the UN Childrens Fund and UN Development

> Program. Radiation is natural, and more ubiquitous to life than

> sunlight or water. When natural background radiation is suppressed,

> organisms show adverse effects. Supplemental radiation is beneficial,

> like a grow light to plants. For thousands of years people have found

> high radiation areas to contribute to good health and to cure many

> physiological conditions, and infectious and inflammatory diseases.

> This stimulating effect is also applied to prevent and cure some

> cancers. The cellular machinery of life on earth developed when the

> radiation was much higher than as it is now. Uranium 238 has a

> half-life about the age of the earth, 4.5 billion years. There was

> twice as much, along with all of its decay products, including radium,

> radon, etc. when life evolved. Uranium 235 has a 700 million year half

> life, so there was 6-8 times as much. Potassium 40, a radioactive

> component of this critical element in cellular functioning, has a 1.3

> billion year half-life, providing a radiation dose about 3 times the

> 20-40 mrem per year we receive from potassium in our bodies. When the

> small radioactive component of natural potassium was removed from

> natural potassium, cells and organisms, and small animals, had adverse

> effects, including death. When the removed potassium was replaced, or

> natural potassium substituted, or exposures supplemented by other

> radiation sources, the cells or organisms recovered. As a Nuclear

> Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff member testified to an NRC Advisory

> Board in 1996, from his personal knowledge of such AEC-funded research

> in 1958, such results were not published because it refutes the false

> government premise that radiation is harmful at low doses. The NRC,

> with specific direction by then current Commissioners, refused to

> examine this allegation of science misconduct and fraud, as they

> supported yet another report by the same people that have

> misrepresented the science at the National Council of Radiation

> Protection and Measurements (NCRP) to again explicitly suppress the

> identified evidence that contradicts their objectives. This defrauds

> the public of $100s Billions in the name of "radiation protection" for

> trivial doses compared to just the variation in background radiation

> that can have NO public health benefit. Regards, Jim

> MuckerheidePresident, Radiation, Science, and HealthCo-Director,

> Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at

> WPIhttp://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh See the reports at the top right of the web

> page:http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/index.html See also our comments on

> the actions of the Federal agencies under "Correspondence and

> Comments" in the left column



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

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/