Re: Truck carrying 'low-level' radioactive tools crashes

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

Sandy,



Meinhold et al. are heavy Congress-crawlers; they also quickly get to the

media editorial Boards when the media "gets off track," like the Wash Post

with Joby Warrick. He never again produced such stuff! And became a carrier

of the fear-mongering about contamination at Paducah - front page stuff - a

"successful journalist!"



Why would you care about whether the public knows who they are? Their

mission is to "infect" the politicians and media (and especially the

anti-nukes) to carry the poison. Then they are removed from being caught in

what they would know are "substantial misconceptions" that will be carried

by the "Apple Annie's" like Boxer, but they of course are too stupid to

respond to questions and facts that would challenge the "info" that they

have from "the experts."



Go to Congress yourself when there's a rad health effects issue!  Ask any

knowledgeable (and open/honest) Cong staffer. You might also find "HPS"

there crawling with a message beyond the testimony. See it especially when

there's money to spread around at stake! :-(



These are NOT people that do most of their work in the light. Going to

Congress is like taking a flashlight into a dark room. You see the roaches

scurry.



Also, our experience with NCRP was that they would not defend themselves.

They would come to a meeting to pronounce, without anything on paper. When

they were caught in misrepresenting the science, they refused to participate

except to "offer" to be the "moderators" in a panel between the "extreme"

factions (in their own letter on their own letterhead!): Bernie Cohen and

Myron Pollycove and (?) vs. Helen Caldecott and  (?? I'll have to look it

up! :=)  They explicitly justify their position as that they are "between

the extremes - the right place to be."  I'm not making this up, and it's not

just an off-hand remark or a statement in a presentation! Meinhold says this

in his July 2000 congressional testimony!  It's like saying: "The right

place to be is between people who say '2+2=4,' and those who say '2+2=22'!"

(Must be 13! After all, "1+3=4." :-)



Further, we found out that a presentation by Meinhold at LANL a few weeks

later, restated the same misrepresentation that they were caught in in

Philadelphia! (1995).



We also find that they are very good at presenting for their audience. If in

front of biology research scientists they wouldn't say what they would say

in front of "a bunch of engineers;" and that's not what they would say in

front of legislators or the public where they would go further!



And this claims to be a "science" org?  You don't need to "believe" me. Just

read their testimony; and get some feedback from your Congressional contacts

about what they actually say beyond even that!



PLUS: When I say "NCRP" read that as "NCRP et al." that are the same closed

self-selected and agency group in all the "review bodies," from ICRP, BRER,

and the EPA SAB rad committee, etc. The only formal review body that has

established a small amount of "independence" under the influence of a few of

the leading scientists in the world, is UNSCEAR. And like the radium

population study program (dial painters et al.) CHR at Argonne, when its

results were becoming evident, the agencies and their minions attempted to

destroy it by giving it to the dishonest control of the IAEA and Abel

Gonzalez!  When that didn't work, they are now destroying it, like DOE,

NCRP, et al. did with the CHR at Argonne, by gutting its funding at the

highest levels of the major states that want it dead: led by the US and UK.



Appointments to review bodies are, of course, controlled by the funding

agencies: who gets funds, gets appointed as an "expert." This also applies

to academic appointments, like Samet at Johns Hopkins, Howe and Hall at

Columbia, Wald at Pittsburg ($5 million to create a "program to train

radiobiology researchers!?"), etc., etc.



Note that, just as Marshall Brucer had noted, the DOE research program funds

the "no biology, no progress" with taxpayer cash to buy the people who get

appointed to NCRP" to just follow the $ Billions "down the rat-hole" spent

since WWII (GAO 1981 reported that, by then, $2 Billion had been spent on

rad biology research!), while actively suppressing the biology research and

researchers, and then the voluminous substantial results that were produced

that disprove the LNT, just as BEIR and NCRP et al. are programmed.



All of this is "on the record," from the people who were there. I didn't

tell Marshall Brucer what to write, or Hugh Henry (Oak Ridge) in JAMA 1961 -

see e.g.:

http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/DD3/3.2.1Henry61.html

(There is a great deal more in this paper on "all" of the then known "low

dose" (defined as roughly data from below about 1 rad / day!) radiation

research results, that show a consistent positive effect



Thanks.

Regards, Jim

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



on 8/17/02 3:13 PM, Sandy Perle at sandyfl@earthlink.net wrote:



> On 17 Aug 2002 at 14:24, Muckerheide wrote:

> 

>> I appreciate what you say in the specifics below. But consider that Boxer et

>> al. are a product of being driven by NCRP "officials" and other

>> Congress-crawlers to reinforce "concerns" about radiation down to 1 mr/yr!

>> 

>> Just because these denizens supported a limit of 100 mr/yr, doesn't mean

>> that they don't go around Congress and other gullible officialdom strongly

>> selling the LNT (way beyond what they got out of some more balanced NCRP

>> report committee)

> 

> Hello Jim,

> 

> Over the past few years, the NCRP has lost most of its external

> funding from both the NRC as well as DOE, and, relies heavily now on

> sponsorship to make ends meet. The NCRP has terminated many of its

> paid technical staff. So, my question is, what evidence do you have

> that supports your contention that all bad negative beliefs that the

> public has, and, members of Congress have, is based on input from

> NCRP? While I agree that politicos base many of their opinions on

> what their constituents tell them (not in all cases), the public, by

> your own definition, must rely on information provided by NCRP. I

> would bet that if an accurate survey were done around this nation

> asking them who is NCRP and what do they stand for, the answer would

> be overwhelmingly, they don't have a clue. If that is the case, how

> can we place the majority of the blame on today's nuclear phobia

> squarely on the shoulders of the NCRP?  In many seminars on

> communicating risks to the public, the NCRP and other associated

> organizations, were never mentioned as to having any major impact on

> public opinion.

> 

> Thanks for any information you can share.

> 

> Sandy

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

> Sandy Perle      

> Director, Technical

> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service

> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue

> Costa Mesa, CA 92626

> 

> Tel: (714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100  Extension 2306

> Fax: (714) 668-3149

> 

> E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com

> E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net

>                

> Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/

> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/

> 



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

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/