[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SECOND TRY -- RE: Limited radiation exposure may actually benefithealth
Again, the report was published and is available for
review. I know you subscribe to the conspiracy that
this report was deliberately hidden, but it really
wasn't. It is just hard to find among all of the
other studies done by DOE and others. In fact, you
can find a number of them at http://cedr.lbl.gov/ and
http://cedr.lbl.gov/cedrhmds.
I certainly agree that the individual studies show
weak correlations between cancer and exposure. A lot
has to do with the nature of the data collected, and
the other is that radiation is a weak carcinogen.
That can even be seen in the atomic bomb survivor
studies. I would also rise the issue that many
cancers may take years for some solid cancers to
develop, as I am sure you know.
Interestingly, I did not see anywhere where the LNT
was referred to in this report. Again, the report was
looking for leukemia and other cancers at the doses
indicated, but no statistical risk, which is true as
far as the report goes.
--- Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu> wrote:
> To the contrary, as I responded 4/9, its a valid epi
> study. It stands on its
> own. It could/would be used by any competent epi
> doing further work. But it
> won't be because it was/is intentionally not
> published. Denying the results,
> and its existence, is done by those with explicit
> political agendas.
>
> They also use results of small, weak, studies to
> falsely claim that the LNT
> can be supported by picking one cancer out of dozens
> in one study, and claim
> an increase in a different cancer from another
> small, weak, study, while
> ignoring the fact that the cancer from the first
> study has a lower cancer
> rate. Of course these studies are too small and weak
> to show a decrement in
> all cancer.
>
> (By the way, since you now have the study, you can
> use the tables yourself
> to compare the actual "All cancer" data in this
> major study to see that the
> exposed group has a statistically significant lower
> cancer rate than the
> non-nuclear workers.)
>
> -Jim
> =================
> I have had the report, 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: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:30 AM
> To: Jim Muckerheide; 'sHoward Long'; 'Susan
> Gawarecki'; 'RadSafe'
> Subject: SECOND TRY -- RE: Limited radiation
> exposure may actually benefit
> health
>
> Jim,
> As noted below, I asked last week for
> epidemiologiists
> who supported your challenge of the NSWS. I have
> not
> heard from you.
>
> If no epidemiologists support an opposing view of
> the
> NSWS, does this indicate those did reviewed the data
> drew the same conclusion? Do you think it could be
> that all the epidemiologist met and decided not to
> allow any dissent of this reports conclusion?
>
> By the way, I found a review of the study: "Study of
> health effects of low-level radiation in USA nuclear
> shipyard workers," Boice J Jr.
> J Radiol Prot. 2001 Dec;21(4):400-3. Let me know if
> anyone is interested in a copy of it. Obviously,
> the
> review was written by a conspirator.
>
> Also, in case you need to refer anyone to the study,
> I
> found a Web site for it:
> http://cedr.lbl.gov/shipyard.pdf
>
>
> --- John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> . . .
>
> =====
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Those who have not known the joy of standing up for
> a great cause of
>
=== 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! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
************************************************************************
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/