RE: No doubt there were flaws in the nuclear NSWS, why rehash it?

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

Isn't it interesting that the flaws and confounders always produce the same

result, whether with shipyard workers, radiologists, radon in the home,

dwellers in high vs low background, etc.  Not to mention the same effect

occurring with non-radiation challenges to organisms: chemicals, pathogens,

sunshine, exercise, trace element nutrients, etc.  Even the increase in

asthma, apparently caused by people living and working in filtered air all

the time, weakening the unchallenged immune system.



"Live with high radiation and let the confounders protect you."



Ted Rockwell



-----Original Message-----

From: John Cameron [mailto:jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu]

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 5:45 PM

To: tedrock@cpcug.org

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: No doubt there were flaws in the nuclear NSWS, why rehash it?





Dear Colleagues, We cannot correct the flaws in the NSWS but we can

request that the details of the study be published. Then it will be

appropriate for scientists to send letters to the  editor to point

out the flaws. The blame should not be put on those who planned the

study or even on the PI. There were several senior epidemiologists on

the Technical Advisory Panel who should have raised these questions.

I was not happy about the dosimetry but I doubt if its defects caused

any serious problems. I am convinced that if the NSWS had produced

data that supported the LNT, there would have been no criticism of

the study and it would have been published.

	The copy of the final report on the Web is not convenient to

use and it is tedious to go through hundreds of pages. I feel that

the article by Ruth Sponsler and me should have been sent to Health

Physics referees rather than being rejected by the Editor with no

appeal process.  Apparently in this case there is nothing to do but

to submit it to another journal where relatively few radiation

protection scientists will read it.

	In the meantime, I think those who are concerned with the

flaws of the NSWS should read the article about 100 years of British

radiologists (1897-1997) and my letter to the editor. I will be happy

to send pdf files of both articles. It does not suffer from the flaws

of the NSWS and shows that even the earliest radiologists did not

have a decrease in longevity.

	I see no point of having more discussion of the NSWS. It

won't remove the flaws. The question is who in the DOE can we

complain to about the handling the NSWS?

	If you want pdf copies of the 100 years of Br. radiologists

study and my letter pointing out the increased longevity, send me an

e-mail. I will put a copy of Ruth and my NSWS article on my web page

where anyone can download it. http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~jrc/ I

plan to put it on the Virtual Radiation Museum but I want to see if

it can be published in a journal first.

http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~vrm. When it is on the VRM I will be

willing to append to it commentaries which are written to journal

standards, i.e., references.

Best wishes,  John Cameron





--

John R. Cameron (jrcamero@wisc.edu)

2678 SW 14th Dr. Gainesville, FL 32608

(352) 371-9865 Fax (352) 371-9866

(winters until  about May  10)



PO Box 405, Lone Rock,WI 53556

(for UPS, etc. insert: E2571 Porter Rd.)

(608) 583-2160; Fax (608) 583-2269

(summer:  until about Oct. 15)



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

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/