[ RadSafe ] NAS Arrogance ("impartiality")

[howard long]

"NAS Prepublication , Uncorrected - Effects of Low Dose Radiation
 
Appendix D  Hormesis
 
"Pollycove and Feinendigan have made a theoretical argument that the hazards of radiation exposure are negligible compared to DNA damage that results from oxidative processes during normal metabolism."  --- "Oxidative damage is much more complex than they appreciate -" .
 
The report supplies no data to justify its conclusion, nor does it provide for dissent!
 
I have heard hours of Pollycove's "theoretical argument" with several dozen graphs correlating their animal experiments with epidemiologic findings (Cohen, Canadian fluoroscopy, etc),
Cherobyl, bomb, high background resident cancer rates, blood findings, etc. I have seen him respond to a highly critical biochemist (Art Robinson of Oregon Inst of Science and Med.) and others. 
 
I believe it is arrogant of the Bier panel to disparage work so consistent in many disciplines.
The French panel wisely concluded from the same data that a little radiation is BENEFICIAL.
Howard Long
 
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Rather than asking me to interpret their conclusions,
why don't you read the report. The appendix that
discusses hormesis is at
http://www.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html/579.html

I assume that you, like me, you can critically read
it. I admit that I am not trained in epidemiology. I
do not know what your background and training are. If
you are an epidemiologist, maybe you can tell me
scientifically what is wrong. I assume that you will
be able to provide some evidence to back up your
assertions.


--- jjcohen at prodigy.net wrote:

> The only explanation I have seen, is that they found
> the evidence
> "unconvincing". If they gave any more cogent
> explanation, I missed it.
> Perhaps you can let us know what it is.
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Jacobus" 
> To: ; 
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"
> 
> 
> > I think they indicated why they rejected the
> hormesis
> > studies. If you do not accept their reasoning,
> maybe
> > you have a preconceived conclusion and cannot
> accept
> > their conclusions.