[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Limited radiation exposure may actually benefit health
John,
Scientists more familiar with NShipyardWS than myself can better comment on
your astute observation that political more than scientific observations are
affecting radiation safety interpretations of its data.
I trust that Cameron and others will supply references and brief guidance
for HPs here.
Howard Long
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
To: "sHoward Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>; "Susan Gawarecki" <loc@icx.net>;
"RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Cc: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Limited radiation exposure may actually benefit health
> No. I cannot. And neither did those professionals
> who analyzed and reanalyzed the data. It is the
> amateur epidemiologist who find all of the beneficial
> effects. Why do suppose that is? A political agenda?
>
> --- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> =====
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Those who have not known the joy of standing up for a great cause of
justice have not known what makes living worthwhile."
> Paul Painleve, regarding the Dreyfus Affair, 1895
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
>
************************************************************************
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/