[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Dirty bombs(more on the LNT)



Howard,
I find it interesting that the authors of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki studies and the shipyard workers did not consider the differences in expected and observed cancers to be statistically significant.  (Even John Cameron will admit that his interpretations of the data are not those of the authors.)  Of course, these are people who actually performed the study and maybe they were not as biased as others who are look for good news about low dose radiation effects.
 
Have a good weekend.

-- John
John P. Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Rad Safety Institute [mailto:radsafeinst@cableone.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 7:25 PM
To: howard long; RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; sjd@swcp.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Dirty bombs(more on the LNT)

That's an interesting reply: thanks for sending it along............................Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Dirty bombs(more on the LNT)

Ed,
My most effective rebuttle (very limited) is to accuse an anti-nuc of depriving people of "invisible sunshine". Most are aware of rickets and can understand the benefit of mortality reduction by raising background ionizing radiation from coast to mountain level, almost equivalent to curing all cancers!
 
Then when they say, "I doubt that!", I quote Hiroshima-Nagasaki cancer reduction (in survivors,up to 10 rad) and Cameron's data of mortality 0.76 for > 0.5 rad extra exposure of shipyard workers, in "Is Radiation An Essential Trace Energy".
I don't have those references on this computer, but they are in this chat box archive.
 
Happy New Year
 
Howard Long