[ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis - Necessary for Public Protection

[John Jacobus]

What does the Kyota Treaty have to do with this
discussion?  If you do not understand the thread
please say so.

You certainly do not perpetuate unwarranted
conclusions, but why can you not answer the questions
asked, e.g., the data in the McGregor and Land 1977
report?  

However, you did make a claim that I said that I
propose use of the LNT for emergency response to
terrorism.  Did you also make this up?

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

> 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
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com