[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/