[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BENEFIT/Risk in Reactor "Accidents"- Hormone Parallel
Jim, Jerry, HPs and Scientists,
Indeed, "In addition to cost reduction, the new market [for nuclear reactors]
requires a reduction of fear and misunderstanding."(below).
Benefit must be balanced with risk. Even with 10 rad from bombs or 75 TB
fluoroscopies, there were FEWER breast cancers. 27,872 shipyard workers receiving
>0.5 rem extra, had 0.76 the all-cause mortality rate of 32,510 very similar workers
with no such extra exposure above the low gulf-coast background radiation. Radiation
risk analysis must always include benefit (two-tailed test) - or be rejected as
evading truth
Medical trials similarly evade truth in reporting risk without benefit. Have you
read recently about increased heart trouble in women over 50 taking estrogen +
progesterone, E+P (contrary to expectations with hormone replacement)?
Facts published by the multi-university Women's Health Initiative include:
"Deaths/10,000, E+P - 52. Placebo -53.
Heart Attacks/10,000 E+P - 37, Placebo - 30
No noteworthy interactions with - smoking - were found -."
However, WHI refused to release to me its data on never-smokers (50% of the c16,000
women taking E+P), although I referred to Layde's classical study on c25,000 British
women taking E+P. Layde et al found c400% cardiovascular deaths on women over 45
taking E+P (oral contraceptive) who had smoked vs never smokers. With this, you can
check my logic and calculations, that, with about half of all deaths being CV, the
total death rate should be REDUCED by E+P at least 25% in non-smoking women!
Motive for such dissimulation can be suspected in knowing that E+P costs much less
than new, less effective osteoporosis medicines. Worse than the $10B reallocated is
the misery inflicted. Don't you know elderly women in constant pain from disfiguring
"dowager hump"?
It may be easier for radiation scientists and safety officers to see evasion of
truth in another profession. The most consciencious and brightest can rationalize
amazingly when popularity, income, prestige, routines, the establishment, etc do not
fit the truth. Calculate benefit with harm to find truth in radiation risk.
Howard Long
Muckerheide wrote:
> Friends,
>
> Another contribution on the Chernobyl/UNSCEAR tragedy:
>
> on 10/26/02 8:50 AM, Jerry Cuttler at jerrycuttler@rogers.com wrote:
>
> > We already know many facts of Chernobyl, but they are rarely publicized in the
> > media. The UN can't seem to come up with very modest funding (~$100,000/y) to
> > continue the excellent work of UNSCEAR. It seems they prefer the Chernobyl
> > myths to the facts.
> >
> > It's time to rerun an old letter:
> >
> > 1781 Medallion Court
> > Mississauga, Ontario
> > L5J 2L6
> >
> > 2000 November 3
> >
> > The Editor
> > CNS Bulletin
> > 9 Sandwell Crescent
> > Kanata, Ontario
> > K2K 1V2
> >
> > Dear Editor,
> >
> > Evolving Safety Analysis Technology
> >
> > I enjoyed very much the excellent paper by John Luxat in the August
> > Bulletin.[1] As he pointed out, recent changes in the electricity market are
> > pushing the nuclear option to be more competitive, and this is driving an
> > evolution/revolution in safety analysis. Among the areas being examined are
> > the specific assumptions and their conservatisms to accommodate uncertainties
> > in supporting knowledge. To help me understand these, I looked for an
> > explanation of requirements established more than two decades ago, and found
> > the 1981 paper by Domaratzki et al[2] very useful.
> >
> > In addition to cost reduction, the new market requires a reduction of fear and
> > misunderstanding.
************************************************************************
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/