Re: Reqeust for Kerala Control Data

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

> Return-path: <root@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu ("port 4313"@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu)
>  by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-5 #10880) id <01HWXLMHE7NK98K469@delphi.com>; Fri,
>  27 Oct 1995 11:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24])
>  by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA64056; Fri,
>  27 Oct 1995 10:18:54 -0500
> Received: by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0) id AA04263; Fri,
>  27 Oct 1995 10:18:49 -0500
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:18:49 -0500
> From: avest@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Albert Lee Vest)
> Subject: Re: Reqeust for Kerala Control Data
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Errors-to: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Message-id: <199510271517.LAA02539@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Precedence: bulk
> Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: Radiation Safety Distribution List
Albert Vest writes:
 
> >Ron,
> >
> >I responded to your other message but find that the anti's use these kinds
> of misdirection statements with great effect, implying great danger to the
> >general public. We all know that. And Gofman, Sternglass, etc do it all the
> time, along with BEIR, NCRP, EPA, etc. I don't think this is "accidental". 
> >
> >I'm disappointed that such "fodder" is reinforced in here too. And of
> course, BEIR is not a credible source for disabusing the public of its 
> 
> With all due respect, Jim, I'd like RADSAFE to remain open to all factual
> data, whether or not it might fall into the "fodder" category.  Withholding
> such information (or any information) isn't going to make presenting a case
> to the general public any easier.

Sorry. I guess didn't make myself clear. (As I said), I KNOW that there are
chomosome aberrations in rad exposed populations. I also KNOW that there are
NO associated health effects in highly exposed populations; and I also KNOW
that the characterization by Ron to chromosome aberrations in a high
background population in the context of indications of adverse public health
outcomes and risk is explicitly used by the anti's to incite the uninformed
public to extreme concern about radiation exposure and the need for MORE gov't 
control. It's the point of making that statement in that context when directed 
to the anti's by Gofman, et al.  Is that what you/we support? 

We weren't (I'm not) talking about "factual data", I'm talking about
"misinformation" to the public posed in the context of the statement. (If it
were a matter of "factual data", we wouldn't be having a discussion at all. I
thought I made that clear. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. I
presume you are not defending the use of the characterization to foster public 
fear on behalf of interests who gain by feeding that fear, but I would be
interested in your views if you want to address the matter of the language we
use that feed erroneous perceptions about potential and actual public health
risks. 

> >Your comment about "retaining scientific objectivity" vs "advocacy" is
> >somewhat disingenuous when your statement, as promulgated, is intrinsic ...
> >is us. Lets take corrective action; be part of the solution, not part of
> the problem. 
> >
> >Regards, Jim
> 
> That's exactly what you did, in bringing up the apparent lack of association
> between chromosomal aberrations and health consequences. And more power to
> you!  But I think Ron has a valid point about presenting such things in an
> objective *manner*.

My view above holds about the "objectivity" of the data when considered in the 
context of the public perception. What do you think?  

> Albert Lee Vest           The Ohio State University
> Health Physicist    Room 103 1314 Kinnear Road Bldg
> (614)292-1284                     1314 Kinnear Road
> avest@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   Columbus OH 43212
> My employer did not review or approve this message.

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com