[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation - nuclear power promotion

[howard long]

No, John, not fair. Your NCRP 136 has chapter titles for info in presentations I have already heard and seen from Luckey, Pollycove, Muckerheide, Cameron and many others over 12 years. So I see no purpose to spending either the $50 or hours of study 
 
Officialdom hides beneficial effect 1, by one-tailed tests ( NSWS), 2, losing it in crowded data at the end of a spectrum (Canadian fluoroscopy - breast-cancer), 3, publicizing only effects at the high dose level (breast cancer -bomb study), etc. Those distortions do not need to be researched again by me. 
 
Fear-mongering ( countered by showing benefit rather than fictitious cancer risk at < 10 rem), 
slows the building of the one hundred new nuclear power plants we need in the USA.
We also need the preventive medicine of more short wave length sunshine, ionizing radiation..

Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Tell you what. I will review Muckerheide's list and
reread Pollycove's paper. You read NCRP 136. 
http://www.ncrponline.org/rpt136.html

Fair enough?

--- howard long wrote:
> John, you obviously have not reviewed Muckerheide's
> extensive file or even read Pollycove's paper
> carefully. I see no purpose to further communication
> until you do.
> 
> Howard Long
> I asked you for real information, not your opinions.
> 
> What billions of dollars? If I wanted to hear
> someone
> cry about the fact that no one listens to us, I
> would
> listen to the anti-nuclear power crowd. 
> 
> --- jjcohen wrote:
> > Proof ??????????????
> > 
> > Untold billions of dollars have, by law and
> > regulation, been expended
> > to avoid low-dose radiation exposures.
> > What is the proof that such exposures would cause
> > harm?????
> > 
> > The hundreds of studies supporting hormesis would
> > certainly indicate
> > beneficial effects. Just what would constitute
> > absolute "smoking gun"
> > proof of beneficial effects??????
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Jacobus 
> > To: jjcohen ; Jay Caplan
> > ;
> > ; howard long
> > 
> > Cc: ;
> > ; yuan-chi luan
> > ; radsafe 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency
> > remediation
> > 
> > 
> > > Just out of curiosity, again, what are the
> > benefits of
> > > receiving this added dose? What do you get? Do
> > you
> > > have any proof of a benefit, or is this part of
> a
> > > religions belief?
> > >
> > > --- jjcohen wrote:
> > > > The biological half-life would not be a
> > > > consideration because the dose would
> > > > not
> > > > be a single dose, but would be continual (i.e.
> > all
> > > > water intake would be
> > > > tritiated).
> > > > Therefore, an equillbrium between intake and
> > > > excretion levels would soon be
> > > > reached and maintained.
> > > > Also, the low mev beta could actually be an
> > > > advantage
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Jay Caplan 
> > > > To: ; howard long
> > > > ; John
> > > > Jacobus ; jjcohen
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: ;
> > > > ; yuan-chi luan
> > > > ; radsafe
> > 
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:25 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation
> > deficiency
> > > > remediation
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dr. Cohen,
> > > > > With a 10 day biological half life, what
> > amount
> > > > would deliver 1 rem? Is
> > > > the
> > > > > fact that tritium only emits a low voltage
> > beta a
> > > > deficiency vis
> > > > anticipated
> > > > > hormesis compared to x-ray or gamma?
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Jay Caplan
> > > >
> > > >