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

[dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com]

Also, even when used, the division between "smokers" and "non-smokers"
seems to be quite imprecise and arbitrary to me.   I have seen a
"non-smoker" defined as "a person who has smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes
in their lives" respecting a radon study.   Based on my personal
experience, that is an absurd "standard", especially since it is based on
self-reporting of behavior that is not normally self-recorded.   I remember
the first cigarette that I smoked when I was 12 years old and the moment
when I decided to avoid (but not quit completely) smoking when I was about
15 years old.  But I certainly don't remember how many smokes I had in
between, or the several I had afterward.  I also don't remember all the
cigars I smoked when I was drunk between the ages of  16 and 18 (not the
entire time).  Of course there is no way to count the times I was in a
small, enclosed space (such as the bathroom in the town theater or a sonar
room) not smoking in a thick cloud of smoke exhaled by crowd surreptitious
smokers.   Shortly after I essentially quit using coffin nails, I also
discovered that it could often be much more interesting occupying an
enclosed space in close proximity to a girl who smoked than it was to
occupy a similar space with a girl who didn't smoke.  Then there were the
times I sat in the first seat of an airliner non-smoking section while the
"smoker" in the next row forward sat with his cig hanging out in the aisle
most of the flight, taking only enough short drags to keep the
carcinogen-generator supplying a steady stream of non-filtered smoke
directly to my face.   I wonder, too, how many epi researchers have seen
the inside of the main fan room of a submarine, with its solid coating of
tar and nicotine.  Even if people kept close track of their smoking, why
would it make sense to put somebody who has smoked one cancer stick a month
for five months, at age 25, in the same category as a person who, at age
16, smoked almost five packs in ten days?   Not to mention putting people
who smoked 110 Trues in a higher risk category than a person who smoked 99
unfiltered Lucky Strikes.  Also, there are those "low-risk" folk who smoked
600 joints, but only 98 cigarettes.

Call the research based on such "non-smoker" standards whatever you want,
but please don't claim that it is "science".

Don Kosloff
Perry OH and Shippingport PA




                                                                                                                                       
                      howard long                                                                                                      
                      <hflong at pacbell.n        To:       John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>, radsafe at radlab.nl                       
                      et>                      cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation - nuclear power  promotion   
                      radsafe-bounces at r                                                                                                
                      adlab.nl                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       
                      04/13/2005 03:01                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       




Mingling the 0-1 rad exposures with the 1-9 rad exposures, HIDES the
hormesis,
as WHI hides the benefit of hormone replacement by mingling smokers with
non-smokers.

Howard Long

e




-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal
and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately,
and delete the original message.