[ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis - Necessary for Public Protection

[howard long]

"Dinosaur" for anyone defending LNT damage to public protection is accurate if intemperate.
 
The Land -Mcgregor report DATA, 34 breast cancers observed after 1-9 rads where 42.3 expected (using the same method  as showed higher O than E with bigger dose),
supports hormesis and should dispell fear of later cancer from that dose - greatly reducing the area of panic and extent of cleanup with nuclear attack.
 
The quote is of Syd, just below.
 
Howard Long 

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
How do I stall realistic public protection? I did not
write any of the DHS planning scenarios. If you have
a problem with them, send you comments to the authors
of the report.

As I say, the McGregor and Land report of 1977 shows
harmful effects at low doses. Maybe hormesis is
bankrupt. Maybe there is more to the story, but you
have to listen and read.

By the way, if you quote someone else's words, you are
to put them in quotation marks and cite the author. 
It is common ethics and good manners to do so.

--- howard long wrote:
> "Hormesis as likely as LNT"? We must be more
> explicit about INCREASED cancer and panic deaths
> from excess "clean up" after an attack, as
> currently planned by DHS.
> 
> I have just reviewed the DHS Planning Scenarios for
> nuclear attack kindly sent me by Gerry Blackwood. As
> much loss of life and cost appears likely from panic
> response as from the attack. Fear of actually
> beneficial doses of radiation is expected to cause,
> far beyond the area of radiation overdose, traffic
> disaster, lawlessness, avoidance of safe water,
> shelter and emergency supplies long after real
> danger from radiation. Chernobyl is still a
> wasteland because of fear, not actual danger for
> most of the area. 
> 
> LNT dinosaurs like John Jacobus stall realistic
> public protection.
> 
> Howard Long
> 
> If it fails at low doses as you say below, then it
> is a bankrupt concept. 
> If you concede that, then what are we arguing about?
> All I put forward is 
> the modest proposition that at very low doses,
> hormesis is about as likely 
> as LNT to be true. You call it cherry picking when
> Long does it, but it is 
> even worse cherry picking when EPA does it to
> support LNT based public 
> policy that costs us all a huge fortune.