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

[John Jacobus]

Why is what I propose not fair?  Basically, you want a
one sided discussion of the issues based those who
have a political agenda.  Maybe if you took the time
and effort in seeing both sides of the issues, would
understand why professional epidemiologist and
radiation sciencists have challenged the claims of
hormesis based on the studies cited.

However, I expected as much.  When I asked you to
comment on the Land and McGregor paper, you refused,
or rather avoided responding.  What are you afraid of?
 Independent thought?  It is certainly cheaper and
takes less time for others form your opinions.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com