[ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis - Necessary for Public Protection

[howard long]

How come the Kyota staff summary was disclaimed by many of the contributing scientists?
 
Look at data. I do not perpetuate unwarranted conclusions. That answers John's question.
 
Come to the DDP meeting in Las Vegas July 16-18 to debate this more. Our Jan '05 Newsletter includes, "A DHS proposal to dramatically reduce the requirements for cleaning up radioactive contamination from a dirty bomb or nuclear explosive would greatly diminish economic losses." www.oism.org/ddp 
 
Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
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 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 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