[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Limited radiation exposure may actually benefit health
Can you cite references from these epidemiologists?
What are their credentials?
Of course I relie on experts in epidemiology to
interrupt data. From what I have read about the field
and other studies, the work involves more than just
collecting numbers and cranking throught the
mathematics. The nature of the data collection
process is obviously very inportant. Putting the data
in contect with other pieces and data sets is also
critical. I certinly do not have that expertise.
I do not find it self evident that data is biased
because it does not agree with what I think it should
say. Maybe the data and conclusion is correct, and my
interpretatons are wrong. I certainly do not have a
political agenda. Do you?
Gee, the DOE report was released in 1991. I guess it
was not suppressed as others (and you?) have claimed.
--- Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu> wrote:
> I have had the, and have had reviews by
> knowledgeable epis, since it was
> released by DOE in 1991.
>
> The report results are self-evident when not
> screened through the people
> with a political agenda. You don't need special
> talents to read the results
> of the report, just to do the analyses. Just read
> the report instead of
> listening to the people with a political agenda.
> (You do have to look at the
> detailed tables to see the "All cancer" data that
> DOE did not report in its
> 1991 summary.)
>
> Unfortunately, instead of reading the report you are
> relying on the word of
> people with a political bias who are misrepresenting
> the report and
> producing disinformation, while ignoring those who
> are reporting objective
> evidence of the science contained in the report.
>
> However, I do believe you when you say you "do not
> have special talents for
> finding hidden... agendas. :-)
>
> Regards, Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:09 PM
> To: Jim Muckerheide; 'sHoward Long'; 'Susan
> Gawarecki'; 'RadSafe'
> Subject: 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
>
=== 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! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
************************************************************************
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/