[ RadSafe ] BEIR VII

[John Jacobus]

Eric,
Thank you for your comments.  I would like to add that
most of the comments come from people who have little
knowledge of epidemiology or radiobiology.  Of course,
we all have the right to our own opinions, otherwise
there would be no political discussions.  However,
science is not like politics, and biology is not like
physics.  Expects in a branch of science are certainly
more qualified to review and comment on each others'
reports.  

My concerns are that while low dose effects can be
demonstrated in cells and some animal models, the
overwhelming number of HUMAN epidemiological studies
show not effects below 0.1 Sv.  I think that is what
we need to focus on.

--- goldinem at songs.sce.com wrote:

> It's both amusing and sad to see all you folks
> besmirching the credibility
> of some of the top radiobiologists and
> epidemiologists in the world because
> you simply don't agree with their conclusions. 
> Sounds an awful lot like
> the anti-nuclear movement.
> 
> Moreover, you're reading way more doom and gloom
> into the report than is
> probably there.  I say "probably" because I haven't
> read the report and
> haven't even finished the entire summary.  But
> before decrying the
> "HP-conspiracy" and claiming the result was rigged
> simply by panel
> composition, first evaluate what the report says:
> *  Epidemiology shows a small increase in risk
> associated with low levels
> of ionizing radiation.
> *  Molecular studies support the concept that
> radiation effects are not
> necessarily the same as metabolic processes and
> therefore, support the idea
> that a risk may be present at low levels.
> *  Cellular studies show that effects may not be
> limited to the directly
> irradiated cell and damage may persist in successive
> generations.
> 
> None of these conclusions are new and the risk
> factors haven't changed.
> And we don't have to evacuate Colorado.
> 
> Most of us in the radiation safety community should
> be happy that the risk
> levels fall in line with the existing regulatory
> framework and therefore
> support the continued use of nuclear technologies. 
> If you hoped for a few
> rem a year threshold, then you've been living on a
> different planet and
> ignoring most of the real radiation science of the
> past few decades.  There
> are tons more studies that support the concept of
> low level radiation
> effects on molecules, cells, and organisms than
> there are the support
> stimulation of the immune system or whatever else is
> hypothesized for
> hormesis.  I've attempted lab experiments on
> hormesis myself (plants) and I
> can tell you that anything so dependent on
> statistics is fraught with
> difficulty.
> 
> I attended one of the first meetings of the BEIR VII
> panel when it was
> formed a number of years ago.  The anti-nuclear
> activists were in force
> railing about the composition of the panel and their
> support from the
> "nuclear industry."  The industry according to them
> is anyone who receives
> financial support from government as well as
> utilities, universities....
> So it is quite amusing to hear folks today asking -
> just how did they form
> that panel of conspirators?
> 
> Signed, a present and former conspirator
> (radiobiology researcher, health
> physicist, educator).  Hope for a future conspiracy
> too.
> 
> Eric M. Goldin, Ph.D., CHP
> <goldinem at songs.sce.com>


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com