[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Limited radiation exposure may actually benefit health
If you would like a copy of the NSWS let me know. I
have a copy so you can review it yourself. It was
never suppressed, but it does make a good story. I am
sure any epidemiologist would have a field day with
the report, but may not get the conclusion you want.
I do not claim to be an epidemiologist, and do not
have special talents for finding hidden data and
agendas. I have to relie on the word of expects,
especially when they all agree.
My question is if people who are trained
epidemiologist and recognized in the field have not
found, why do you think there is something in the data
they cannot find? Do you have any special talents and
skills that these professionals do not?
--- Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu> wrote:
> You're right John! Never thought I would agree with
> you!
>
> The study was produced with competent epi analyses.
> The results are
> unambiguous and would be used directly by any
> competent researcher doing an
> analysis, as scientists routinely do in using
> published data.
>
> But the DOE's political agenda prevented Genevieve
> Matanoski from publishing
> the study (despite 10 years, 1978-1988, and $10
> million to perform the study
> with a primary purpose of eliminating any bias in
> the exposed vs. unexposed
> working populations).
>
> Later, in 1994, after long negotiations, DOE awarded
> Matanoski a substantial
> contract to continue to be funded (at which point
> she was able to give up
> being Chair of Johns Hopkins Epi Dept), but no paper
> reporting on these
> results was ever pub'd, and DOE was able to falsely
> claim that the exposed
> group had a healthy worker effect. Other "epi
> reviewers" that produce
> disinformation on the results are similarly engaged
> to support the political
> agenda of DOE et al.
>
> Regards, Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:07 AM
> To: sHoward Long; Susan Gawarecki; RadSafe
> Cc: Jim Muckerheide
> 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.
>
=== 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
__________________________________
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/