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

[John Jacobus]

That is very bold and libelous statement.  Do you have
any proof of their scientific misconduct?  Is this the
typical answer that proponent of hormesis give when
presented with evidence they don't like?  Attack the
authors of a peer reviewed article?   Your cannot
change published data.  It is for all the world to
see.  

Maybe you are right.  We do not have very much in
common.  You will say and do whatever it takes to win
your arguement.  You have lost all credibility with
me.  I doubt if you care.

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

> Land-Mcgregor later sanitize their paper to hide the
> inescapable fact that there was LESS breast cancer
> at 1-9rad than expected from controlling as they did
> to find the MORE breast cancer at high doses. 
>  
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 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
. . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"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