Re: Bethlehem Steel, Vitkis and comments

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

I wasn't going to respond, but the bleeding heart rhetoric about "compassion" got to me.



So here is a response that is NOT caring (I am not sure about dignified).  NIOSH's dose reconstructions are conservative.  The reconstructions consider all exposure cumulative, include chest x-rays and other diagnostic x-ray, correct for smoking only in the case of lung cancer, count basal and squamous cell skin cancers as being radiation exposure-induced (even though the relationship between these cancers and sunlight UV exposure is well understood), and so on.  In other words, NIOSH goes to great lengths to show exposure. 



If exposure (to uranium oxide and metal) was in 1949-1952, with some residual exposure since then, how can that reliably be correlated to any disease, including most cancers, half a century after the exposure?  And in people who if they were 18 in 1949, are now 73, and have been exposed to lots of carcinogens and various hazards in the intervening 55 years?  How about the cohort who had equal or greater exposure and don't have any disease that can even by extension be correlated to radiation exposure?



The demands for compensation look a lot like just demands for money.





-- 

Ruth F. Weiner

ruthweiner@aol.com

505-856-5011

(o)505-284-8406



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

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/