Re: Studies on the health affects to Rad workers

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

Is there a simple table somewhere, preferably on the net, that summarizes

the data without any spin? The table should give simple straight forward

facts such as:



Miners exposed to large amounts of radon progeny (~1000 WLM) had elevated

levels of lc as compared to.....



People living in areas with high levels of radon have lower

incidences of lc as compared to people living in areas with lower levels of

radon.



x 000 shipyard workers exposed to radiation had lower....



People living in areas with high BG gamma .....



I think to a large extent the data speaks for itself. Most people know that

usually, but not always, the most obvious explanation is the correct one.

Any public discussion about radiation should start with the facts and give

interpretation (spin) afterward. This is the opposite of what we usually do:

we present our theory and then we try to back it up with (selected) facts.



Kai

http://www.eic.nu



----- Original Message -----

From: "muckerheide" <muckerheide@attbi.com>

To: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>;

<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:37 PM

Subject: Re: Studies on the health affects to Rad workers





> From: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

>

> > Tom,

> > I would also suggest NCRP Report 136, "Evaluation of the

Linear-Nonthreshold

> > Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation."  It provides an extensive

list

> > of studies that have been conducted, and well as good information on

many of

> > the factors and problems involved with the various studies.  Whether or

not

> > you believe in the LNT it is important to be look at all aspects of the

> > discussion.  Right, Jim?

> >

> > -- John

>

> C'mon John, even you can't believe this.  NCRP didn't even address the

data

> they were directed to by the NRC Chairman. When we asked NRC to check

NCRP's

> response to its own request (based on the record of data that initiated

> their letter), we got "We can't question their results. They're an

> independent organization."  NRC also said "material false statement" rules

> don't apply to NCRP the way it would to a contractor or licensee. The

> Advisory Committee said they were under "extreme pressure" from the

highest

> levels to NOT assess or question the report vs. their 1996 review and

letter

> stating that NCRP needed to be directed to consider ALL the data (Greta

> Dicus, then acting chair - getting ICRP appointment in the process; NCRP

> waited til Shirley Jackson was gone, waiting years to issue a report that

> was supposed to be done in '98 with 3-year funding from NRC).  NCRP didn't

> address the 200+ studies they were given by us; and didn't respond to

formal

> comments from their "official" cooperating organizations that they claim

are

> the "peer-review process" and concurrence of the scientific community that

> otherwise doesn't exist.

>

> See comments to NCRP at:

> http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Correspondence/NCRP136/index.htm

>

> In the document, they explicitly misrepresent a few studies, and ignore

> most. They primarily use high-dose studies and irrelevant responses by

cells

> in culture to claim the LNT can't be eliminated.

>

> Oh, maybe you could identify the rad vs. non-rad worker studies you rely

on

> in the report to support the LNT.

>

> Note that even the Committee asserts (as we document in our sources that

you

> and Bill object to) (p.6) ³it is important to note that the rates of

cancer

> in most populations exposed to low-level radiation have not been found to

be

> detectably increased, and that  in most cases the rates have appeared to

be

> decreased.²

>

> The Committee concedes (p.8) that the data they use ³come primarily from

> observations at moderate-to-high levels of exposure.²

>

> The Committee also states ³in vitro studies have yielded the most reliable

> dose-response data.² This is true for pounding on cells in a Petri dish,

but

> it has no direct relevance to radiation health effects in whole organisms.

>

> Regards, Jim

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

>



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

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/