[ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis - Necessary for Public Protection

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 21 18:07:21 CET 2005


Then how come their report of 1977 shows more cancers
than expected based on epidemiological studies?  You
have never answered my question.

Again, 34 breast cancers is data.  See table 1 of the
1979 report The 42.3 expected is a projection.  Like
you expect people to believe that you have a degree in
epidemiology.

By the way, I am not advocating the use of the LNT for
public protection.  Where did you get the idea?  Did
you make it up?

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

+++++++++++++++++++
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
enough people to make it worth the effort." Herm Albright

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


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


More information about the radsafe mailing list