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

Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are no...



 

 howard long <hlong@pacbell.net> wrote:

"Healthy worker" selection is the reason controls were other shipyard workers, seemingly identical to the subjects in all respects other than radiation exposure, in the NSWS.
 
It is a fact that <0.5 rem from work exposure above coast background (c 0.014mR/hour on my GC here), they could not confirm biologic effect, good or bad. That is much lower than the 10 rem/year you stated earlier, JJ. I  propose 1.0 mrem/hr from under matress 8 hrs/day or c 3.0 rem/year (equal to a couple of CTs). Like salt, bread, or sunshine, dose determines benefit or harm. Let's test it. We already have stage 1 trial (the dose at which there is no harm). Many need more convincing evidence of benefit, stage 3 trial. We need to learn the best dose, as with any medicine.
 
Howard Long
. . .

Howard,

I await the results of your study.



-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com



Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now