[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: The Realism Project
The following received this morning. The author included a PowerPoint
presentation about the Taiwan findings, which can probably be requested
from nbcsoc@hotmail.com
Mike
Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone (615) 343-0068
Fax (615) 322-3764
Pager (615) 835-5153
e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
internet www.doseinfo-radar.com
-----Original Message-----
From: yuan-chi luan [mailto:nbcsoc@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:11 AM
To: tedrock@starpower.net; cpennington@NACINTL.COM
Cc: jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu; rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU;
owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
Subject: RE: The Realism Project
Dear Ted:
We are completely supporting you to initiate a white paper to cover
the
real health effects of radiation which might benefit the whole huamn
beinggs. The radaition health effects observed in the Co-60
contamiantion
incident is surely the most important in understanding fo the
realism.
Some studies with results reported in many international conferednces
and in
one medical journal by a group of independent and knowlegeable
scientists,
that could postively and strongly show chronic expossure radiation
received
by the residents is always beneficialt to human beings. But they are
often
questioned too simple and need more data, so that they have to be
restudied or confirmed by the outstanding international radiation
scientists
with the cooperation of the Taiwan government. There were also many
reports
publioshed in the interantional journals,only no cancer moftality of
resdients were included, as there were no actully data ever observed.
Recently an important report in IRPA-11 indicating the cancer incidnece
observed among the irradiated residents, but the standard incidence
ratio
(SIR) was 0.8 in comparison with the general public in Taiwan, that
meant
the chronic radiation received in the incident is also bendficial to
people.
While there are cancer incidennces, there are cancer deaths, but there
were
only two leukemia deaths of the students reported in media in Taiwan,
no
other 5 leukemia deaths ever reported. There are still many scientists
are
trying to understand the health effects of radiation observed in the
IRPA-11
report.
We hope you could edit some paper and convence the ICRP and UNSCEAR
people
to benefit the nuclear industry, but I still have my dream in chronic
radiation with proper doses might immunize the cancers and hereditary
diseases. Next month, I will represent our group to present a paper in
the
conference by the Medical Academy of science in Moscowl. If you want to
know
what I have in mind, you may read the attachment.
Best regards
Y.C. Luan
----------------------------------------------------------- origanal
message-----------------------------------------------
>From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>
>To: "Charles Pennington" <cpennington@NACINTL.COM>
>CC: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>, "Rad-Sci-L"
><rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>, "RADSAFE"
<owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>,
> <owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
>Subject: RE: The Realism Project
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:43:20 -0400
>
>Charlie:
>
>You're right! This is clearly a deliberate effort to discredit all the
>good
>LDR work. The new ICRP recommendations are another. And the Taiwanese
>government is apparently determined to obfuscate the clear meaning of
the
>irradiated apartment dwellers. We should be working to overcome such
>regressive efforts.
>
>This is why I feel the Realism Project is important. Its purpose is
>not to create a PR campaign, but to work internally to root out all the
>unrealistic premises that have crept into our analyzes and from there
>into our policies,
>rules and practices. When we finally have a clear description of the
>scientific
>facts, then it will be much easier to correct bad info.
>
>Thanks for your input.
>
>Ted Rockwell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU [mailto:owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU]On
>Behalf
>Of
>Charles Pennington
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:57 PM
> To: Ted Rockwell
> Cc: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU; RADSAFE; Rad-Sci-L
> Subject: Re: The Realism Project
>
>
> Ted
>
> Just got back in the country and read the NW article. It was
>excellent, and your follow-up crystalizes the core points for everyone
>to keep in mind. Well done!
>
> However, I was disturbed by the page 1 lead article in that issue of
>NW, "UNSCEAR probes low-dose radiation link to non-cancer death rate",
>which continues on page 13 just before the article covering your
>Realism Project. This UNSCEAR effort is clearly focused upon
>discrediting and countering the benefits of LDR work developed over the
>last 10 - 15 years, and this looks to be an effort we must begin to
>expose and oppose quickly. I'm sure you and Jim have been tracking this
>UNSCEAR effort as its new leadership redirects it in an ominous
>direction. Clearly, they must be pulling statistically insignificant
>data from studies and making more of it than is warranted. Studies,
>such as the NSWS or the one in the abstract sent out by Jim today on
>low mortality rates in UKAEA workers, show the error of what UNSCEAR is
>doing.
>
> Is there organized opposition to confront UNSCEAR on this or to
>expose this effort as fraud by displaying more compelling information
>that his been ignored?
>
> Charlie
>
> "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>
>
>
> "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>
> Sent by: owner-rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
> 06/20/2004 11:01 PM
>
>
> To
> "Rad-Sci-L" <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>, "RADSAFE"
><owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>
>
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> The Realism Project
>
>
>
> Friends:
>
> In response to the Nucleonics Week write-up on the Realism Session
>at
>ANS,
>I
> wrote the following note to the author:
>
> Jenny Weil:
>
> Thank you for your accurate and informative coverage of our ANS
>session
>on
> realism. There will continue to be newsworthy activities in this
area
>for
> some time. I suggest you keep two points in mind in reviewing this
>work.
> First, that this is not a move to put spin on our public relations;
it
>is
> addressed to the nuclear community, referring to how we should carry
on
>our
> work. If that is done properly and honestly, it will not require
spin
>in
> the reporting. And, incidentally, the initiative is not coming from
the
> industry and the advisory ommittees, which have been happily
spending
>money
> addressing non-existing risks. The initiative is coming from the
> scientists, engineers and regulators, for whom the disconnects
between
>the
> scary claims and the scientific data have become too obvious to live
>with.
>
> Second, there is no attempt here to lower safety standards or
>performance.
> Basing design and performance on scientifically valid premises,
>increases
> safety. It does not decrease safety.
>
> Thanks again for your interest and reportage. This is a vital
>turning point
> in nuclear technologies, and it warrants all the understanding it
>can
>get.
> Please feel free to call me any time if I can help.
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
************************************************************************
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/