Re: "Hormetic" responses are intrinsic to biology

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

on 10/13/02 9:58 AM, John Jacobus at jenday1@MSN.COM wrote:



> Jim,

> Thanks for the information.  I may have lost some of the original

> information you sent.

> 

> I will look up the posting in your Web site, and will try and get the Rad

> Research article when I get back to work.  Obviously, the information was

> not suppressed if it was published.



Please read the msg. It's tiresome repeating the same things over and over.



1. The Argonne 1980s work was/is pub'd (with Oak Ridge and non-Oak Ridge

K-39 sources)



2. The Oak Ridge 1950s-60s studies were/are suppressed!



>As you may remember, there were charges

> during the that experimental studies on humans were "suppressed."

> Now you can find the information on the Web at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/.



An investigation shows whether they were or were not suppressed!? (Most

cases show they were not suppressed, contrary to the anti's, but NOT because

they are uncovered by an investigation.)  NRC wouldn't "investigate" Charlie

Willis' allegations. But, if they were uncovered/reported now it wouldn't

mean that they weren't suppressed.





> The

> real question is the relevancy to (1) scientific study and (2) regulations.

> I try to keep the two separated, like common sense and laws passed by

> Congress.

> 

> As for the NRC site, it is impossible to find any information that before

> 1998.  You cannot access archived material.  Even then, you have to know how

> it is filed.  As an exercise in futility, check it out.  If you have any

> other information, like dates or report names, let me know.  It may be lead

> to the original testimony.



March 26 1996 transcript of the first joint subcommittee of ACRS and ACNW. I

probably have it downloaded, but you'd just accuse me of lying again if it

came from me.





> Again, I admire all the work you have done on your Web site.  Even if I do

> not agree with your conclusions. I do think that there is a need to

> critically look at this data.  (Maybe money could be given to the NCRP to

> look at the data separately from the LNT controversy.)



NCRP was given money to look at this by NRC. They received direction from

the NRC Chairman to address this data forwarding a letter to the Chairman

from ACNW in July 1996 based on the data presented in March 1996. The data

was ignored in the Oct 1998 draft, and ACNW would not question the NCRP on

its failure (due to the "great pressure" from Dicus, etc., which led to her

appt. to ICRP) but our participation in the March 1999 meeting did get them

to commit to ACNW to address the data (see the transcript). But the final

report was essentially unchanged. NRC said it "can't question" their failure

even though NRC paid for the report (and the NRC rad protectionists, Reg

Research, was complicit in the dishonesty of the report, and ACNW wouldn't

demand any accounting from them either). The dishonesty was blatant and

simply to be accepted.



>I believe that is how science is about.



Right! At least that's how gov't "science" is done.



>DOE's research efforts on low dose effects is probably an

> outgrowth of this controversy.



"Probably?" As you know, our 1996 and 1997 reports initiated Domenici's

effort to produce the funds in response to the international controversy,

which also produced the Wingspread Conference in 1997 and BRPS in 1999.

Unfortunately, he ignored our advise to assure that relevant biology and

medicine research would be done, and gave the money to DOE which simply

continued the decades-long AEC/DOE practice of failing to do any research on

the relevant biology. (It spends all its resources looking under the LNT

lamppost and claiming it can find any keys!)



You don't have to believe me, just go to lowdose.org and you'll find no

research projects that address the relevant biology in immunologically whole

organisms (following the studies that are documented in our reports since

1995). 



Or better yet, let me know if you find any relevant research project in the

DOE program! (Some people that I trust claim that this is changing, that DOE

just wanted to make sure its program would get the full 10 years of research

funded, but I'm still looking to see a credible research project in the DOE

program. Ron Mitchel's AECL proposals were rejected.)



Of course, such results would still simply be ignored by NCRP, as present

results are ignored (and by ICRP, IAEA, BEIR etc.) plus EPA et al. "advisory

committees." But then such results might give Congress a little backbone, to

follow the July 2000 House hearing on the LNT.



Jim



>Of course, regulatory changes are another

> issue.

> 

> Have a good weekend.

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD 20715-2024

> jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 19:59:59 -0400

> Muckerheide wrote:

> 

> Oak Ridge calutron records show producing K-39 for biology experiments.

> Charlie Willis reported personal knowledge on the March 1996 NRC transcript

> (gave you the NRC web site URL). Argonne's 1980s paramecia experiments were

> done with a vial from Oak Ridge dated 1962 contaminated by being recovered

> from animal experiments. There's no question that Oak Ridge did the

> experiments. The only question is whether Willis is right that they were not

> reported because of the LNT. Since you didn't find any reports, why

> 

> If you're trying to imply that there's no K-39 data, we've been there before

> also. The paramecia study at Argonne, Luckey, Rad Research, 1986, 108,

> 215-221. An extract is, again, on our web site. See the first item at:

> http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-3/2/132list.html

> . . .

> 

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

> 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/