[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Limited radiation exposure may actually benefit health
John,
If you trust NSWS to show LDR did no harm, then you should also trust the
0.76 all-cause mortality of workers with > 0.5 rem extra vs similar workers
not exposed, to demonstrate BENEFIT (p= 0.0009).
Howard Long
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
To: "Susan Gawarecki" <loc@icx.net>; "RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Limited radiation exposure may actually benefit health
> I think there is a big difference between saying that
> low level, low dose-rate radiation has no demonstrated
> effect and saying that it is beneficial.
>
> The purpose of the DOE shipyard study was to
> demonstrate no exposure effects, which it did. The
> study did not demonstrate a benefit from exposures.
>
> --- Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net> wrote:
> > Here's a newspaper article that puts a positive
> > light on radiation. I
> > think I've heard of this guy somewhere before....
> >
> > --Susan Gawarecki
> >
> > Limited radiation exposure may actually benefit
> > health
> > By JOHN CAMERON
> > Gainesville Sun
> > April 05. 2004 6:01AM
> >
> > Studies have shown that radiation from nuclear power
> > can actually be good.
> >
> > he Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear power accident in
> > March 1979 is still
> > remembered. Many people still have a fear of things
> > nuclear. The average
> > person has never learned that there was no real
> > danger to the public
> > during the TMI accident.
> >
> > The important aspect of the TMI accident was that
> > the safety features
> > worked. The reinforced concrete building kept nearly
> > all the
> > radioactivity safely inside. The small amount that
> > escaped probably
> > improved the health of those who got some of it, as
> > you will learn
> > later. The Chernobyl nuclear accident was much worse
> > because it didn't
> > have those safety features.
> >
> > The fear of nuclear radiation is a fear of the
> > unknown. We need to
> > educate the public that low-level radiation, such as
> > we all get from
> > nature, is beneficial if we get enough of it. There
> > is good evidence
> > from government-funded studies that we need more
> > radiation for good health.
> >
> > It is a shame that most people still believe that
> > even a little
> > radiation may cause cancer. The government has not
> > told the public that
> > we need more radiation for good health discovered
> > with over $10 million
> > of taxpayer's money.
> >
> > Natural radioactivity in our body hits millions of
> > our cells every
> > minute, billions of our cells every day and
> > trillions of cells every
> > year. Our cells are also bombarded by more radiation
> > from external
> > natural radioactivity in the environment and from
> > cosmic rays.
> >
> > External radiation can easily be measured with a
> > Geiger counter. When I
> > fly, my Geiger counter indicates about ten times
> > more radiation than on
> > the ground.
> >
> > A government study in 1973 showed that people in our
> > mountain states are
> > exposed to 300 percent more natural radiation than
> > people in the Gulf
> > States. However, the cancer death rate in the Gulf
> > States is 25 percent
> > greater. That is, an increase in radiation does not
> > increase the risk of
> > cancer.
> >
> > The average dose from medical x-rays in the United
> > States is much less
> > than we get from nature, so you can stop worrying
> > about that also. The
> > results of two radiation studies show that we need
> > more radiation for
> > good health.
> >
> > In 1980-1988, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
> > studied the health of
> > 28,000 U.S. nuclear shipyard workers who had
> > received the largest
> > radiation doses. Their health was compared to 32,500
> > shipyard workers
> > with the same ages and same jobs, but who didn't
> > work on nuclear
> > propelled ships. The DOE expected to see an increase
> > in cancer among the
> > nuclear workers. Instead they found a 15 percent
> > decrease. The results
> > of this important study have yet to be published or
> > told to the public.
> >
> > The increased radiation apparently stimulated the
> > immune system of the
> > nuclear workers. The nuclear workers are living
> > about three years longer
> > than the unexposed workers. I know about the nuclear
> > shipyard worker
> > study because I was one of eight scientists that
> > supervised the study
> > from 1980-1988.
> >
> > The earliest radiation workers were the doctors who
> > used x-rays. The
> > 100-year study of British radiologists (British
> > Journal of Radiology
> > June 2001) showed that the earliest radiologists
> > (1897-1920) had a 75
> > percent increase in cancer compared to other English
> > doctors. There is
> > no doubt that large radiation doses caused the
> > increased cancer.
> >
> > After 1920 British radiologists were more careful
> > and never again had a
> > significant excess of cancer compared to other
> > English doctors. That is,
> > their radiation dose did not exceed the high level
> > that can cause
> > cancer. This is also known from a 1974 study of the
> > radium dial painters.
> >
> > Recent English radiologists (1955-1979) have less
> > cancer and are living
> > over three years longer than other doctors. That is
> > an increase in
> > longevity that is greater than would occur if all
> > cancer were curable!
> >
> > This confirms the increase in longevity of the
> > nuclear shipyard workers.
> > The results of these two studies were the basis of
> > my recent article in
> > Radiology (October 2003) that increased longevity,
> > not cancer, is the
> > best measure of health effects of radiation.
> >
> > Visit the Virtual Radiation Museum at
> > http://www.sciencemuseum.us to
> > learn more about ionizing radiation. I started it a
> > couple years ago and
> > it will continue to grow.
> >
> > John Cameron is a professor emeritus of the
> > University of
> > Wisconsin-Madison's departments of Medical Physics,
> > Radiology and
> > Physics, and a visiting professor at the University
> > of Florida's
> > Department of Radiation Oncology.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
> > 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/
> >
>
>
> =====
> +++++++++++++++++++
> ""A fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and won't change the
subject." Winston Churchill
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/