[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the health of science - and application
Dear Dr. Howard Long and all radiation scientific friends:
You said junk science use $100 B to remove beneficial level of radiation from Hanford, rector waste site, etc. There was a paper of E.S Gilbert published in HPJ 64(3:577-590:1993) indicating the cancer mortality of the Hanford workers with doses per 10 mSv were negative, but strong " healthy worker effects" was found. So that there was no conclusion for radiation has beneficial or harmful effects to humans,which might be agreed by all the radiation prptection people. Is it beneficial to the tax paid from the general public and their health.
You seem agree to Camerion idea in putting uranium ore under the matress, I agee also to his idea, but recommended him to use higher doses as 50 mSv /y. The radiation doses received by Hanfrd workers average in 10 mSv whole life, it did reduce some cancer mortality of the workers, but was easy to observe, there avegage doses received by the residnts in the Co-60 contaminated houses was about 50 mSv/y in 1983, their camcer mortality reduced to about only 3% of the general population, and both ANS and HPS asserted 50 mSv of radiation received in one year, worrying of the risk is not necessary, so I rmembered I suggested him to use 50 mSv, not only one or two time of natural background.
There were other friends have mentioned junk science threating the health of science. I remembered I have crticized the junk science from WHO seriously injured the people in the pacific basin countries, they use the gene of flu of bird or animal could reorganize with the gene of flu of humans to form a new gene of flu of huamns. which might be able to killl billions of people in a short time. There was a new virus of disease named SARS ( it stand for server acute respirtory symdrome) possibly just in circulation in the area of China and Hong-Kong, strict control measres had to be taken by the local countries, then the Busness and Sight seeing acivities sharply affected, $ million B of money lost. But the government, many scientist commuities were benefitted by having numerious tax money that coulld be used freely with private interest and desire. I am sad to to hear recently that, the big sum of resved SARS budget is being used for President Election. and I am angry that,
!
th!
e reserved budget had been allocated to some anti-nulear community for using to keep the nuclear free homstead country, which I am proud it is still a free and democratic country.
It is hard for the scientists to refrain the WHO to create false scientific data, but it is important for the conscientous scientist, When the UN could give correct scientific data, all the countries will be benefitted.
--------------------------------- original message----------------------------------------------
>From: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>
>To: "myron pollycove" <pollycove@comcast.net>, "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>, "RAD-SCI-L" <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
>CC: "\"Jerry Cuttler\"" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>
>Subject: Re: the health of science - and application
>Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:57:37 -0800
>
>Myron, Jim and Jerry's contributions, while highlighting the junk science
>for $100 B to remove beneficial levels of radiation from Hanford, reactor
>waste sites, etc, should not distract from the benefit of using uncertain
>findings to help individuals now, the constant problem of practicing
>physicians like myself.
>
>"All generalizations [rules] are false".
>
>How are we to facilitate the use of radiation like Cameron's uranium ore
>under the mattress?
>
>Howard Long
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "myron pollycove" <pollycove@comcast.net>
>To: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>; "RAD-SCI-L"
><rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
>Cc: ""Jerry Cuttler"" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>
>Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 12:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Junk science threatening the health of science itself, from The
>Week That Was, December 20, 2003
>
>
> > Friends,
> >
> > As Jim repeatedly emphasizes, official agencies that establish guidelines
> > and adopt rules for public safety persistently disregard valid
>reproducible
> > observations that contradict the LNT rule. Their unscientific disregard
>of
> > exceptions to LNT is understandable by the desires to "follow the money"
>and
> > for "power and influence."
> >
> > Nobel Prize physicist Richard P. Feynman gave a series of three lectures
>in
> > April 1963 at the University of Washington, Seattle: "The Uncertainty of
> > Science," "The Uncertainty of Values," and "This Unscientific Age" --- 40
> > years before the Michael Crichton lecture at Caltech. These Feynman
> > lectures were published in 1998 by Perseus Books: "The Meaning of It
> > All....Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist." To quote Feynman from "The
> > Uncertainty of Science":
> >
> > "The third aspect of my subject is that of science as a method of finding
> > things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the
> > judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and
> > characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand
> > that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea.
> > But 'prove' used in this way really means 'test,' in the same way that a
> > hundred-proof alcohol is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the
> > idea should really be translated as, 'The exception proves that the rule
>is
> > wrong.' That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to
>any
> > rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
> >
> > The exceptions to any rule are most interesting in themselves, for they
>show
> > us that the old rule is wrong. And it is most exciting, then, to find out
> > what the right rule, if any, is. The exception is studied, along with
>other
> > conditions that produce similar effects. The scientist tries to find more
> > exceptions and to determine the characteristics of the exceptions, a
>process
> > that is continually exciting as it develops. He does not try to avoid
> > showing that the rules are wrong; there is progress and excitement in the
> > exact opposite. He tries to prove himself wrong as quickly as possible."
> >
> >
> > Myron Pollycove
> > 11441 Hollowstone Drive
> > North Bethesda, MD 20852
> > Ph: (301)816-3119
> > Fax: (301)816-2863
> > E-mail: pollycove@comcast.net
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
> > To: "RAD-SCI-L" <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
> > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 4:45 PM
> > Subject: RE: Junk science threatening the health of science itself, from
>The
> > Week That Was, December 20, 2003
> >
> >
> > > Friends,
> > >
> > > The following msg by Jerry Cuttler, with a large attachment from Fred
> > > Singer's SEPP web site, bounced. Please read the full paper at:
> > > http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html
> > >
> > > This is a powerful indictment of the present state of science, and
> > > should be widely read, distributed, and applied repeatedly in
> > > questioning current "science" as we know it.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Regards, Jim
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU [mailto:owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > Of Jerry Cuttler
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:39 PM
> > > > To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail); RAD-SCI-L
> > > > Subject: Junk science threatening the health of science itself, from
> > > The
> > > > Week That Was, December 20, 2003
> > > >
> > > > By relating aliens to global warming, Michael Crichton presents a
> > > > brilliant exposition of how junk science came to distort public
> > > > policy - and ultimately threaten the health of science itself. It
> > > > is a rather long lecture, delivered at Caltech, but well worth
> > > reading.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail Extra Storage????10MB ??????,????! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=zh-hk