Re: Kerala Downs Syndrome

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

David,

I want to apologize for my flippant answer to your question in a vain attempt
at a little humor. In re-reading the note, it was clearly inadequate to the
intent, smiley faces not withstanding. I intended the context of "I don't know 
off hand but would doubt that in the study of the overall health statistics of 
the population, if the data had indicated any such significance it would have
been reported, in the sense that of all the endpoints in any such study that
is a favorite ref of the anti's, only the one of any adverse significance is
reported. The exposed population could live to be a hundred and have very low
cardio-vascular disease and we'd never hear of it." In any event, if I can put 
my hands on the ref (I'm leaving for a week tomorrow morning). I'll try to
provide some answer.  

> Do you normally reply to an honest question in this way?  This is science in you

As you would note from my posts, no; and I  hope science in my terms is quite
clear to all. It has to do with the data and analysis, and the truth. 

> r terms?  God alone knows what you 
> make of the complex stats concerning the perception of risk by ordinary people. 

I'm clear on that too. People respond to what they are told; and they learn if 
given information. Their "irrational" fears of radiation, made equivalent to
metaphysical fears, are created by intent by applying misinformation and
disinformation. Today there is no substantive effort to counter that fear, to
the benefit of those who create the fear (eg, EPA and radon; FDA and radium;
etc.). 

>  I presume you merely consider them irrelevant.  

As you would get from my approach I consider them rational and abused by those 
who have a duty to tell the truth in government and our major institutions,
and are not; in cooperation with anti nuclear interests gaining financial
support and political capital in the process. (The media is a small player
except for some who are activists - mostly they just report what they are told 
and what they see:  an overeaction in conflict with the public interest.) 

>If you seriously think that any politician will risk re-election in
>  the face of near unanimous fear of radiation 
> (whether valid or not) then you need your head examined.  

Hmmm... so continue to lie because the public believes a lie? Your premise is
of course a Catch 22. 

>There are a lot of serious REAL points simply being 
> ignored in this "discussion".  I am simply trying to get some sense out of it.  
> We will not see any rise in the permitted 
> level of radiation limits come what may.  This is due to fear of the unknown.  
>Radiation will always be the unknown to the vast majority.  

So you believe the public is uneducable. Clearly you have no idea of what the
public is or is worth or capable of understanding. There is no substantial
"unknown" in radiation except as it serves other purposes.  You are clearly
anti-science and anti-education. You are saying that people will always think
that a photograph captures their soul. :-) Or that traveling more than 30 mph
on a train will destroy their constitution. Fears are resolved by knowledge.
Time to get on with it. What purpose does your life serve otherwise? 

>Remember we fear the unknown too.  We will all have our 
> areas we don't know about that we 
> overestimate out of all proportion the risks and which we will not listen to any
> one telling us different. 

Not only is the public uneducable, so are we. Well, maybe some of us :-)

> What worries me most in the radiation world is the nuclear plant operators.  
>We've got two brilliant examples of what 
> happens when they "ride for the brand" instead of following the rules (Three 
>Mile Island and Chernobyl).  Nobody has 
> yet convinced me that some arrogant twit will not "know better" than those who 
>wrote the rules.  

You don't understand the significance of what you just said. Because power
plant boilers blew up routinely, and killed thousands, in the end of the last
and early part of this century, we will _always_ have boilers blowing up and
killing people! Brother. 

>The arrogance with 
> which this "discussion" has been carried out does not incline me to hope.

Well, you've brought my confidence in the rationality and educability of man
down a notch or 2.  :-) 

> David Walland
> 
> By the way from my degree in Health and Safety, psychology, sociology and behavi
> our of organisations have proved 
> to be of the most enduring use to me over the years.  

I'll bet. We don't have to look to far to find "part of the problem"! :-) 

I still apologize for my poor attempt at humor.  I didn't understand that it
was a serious question.  I understand better now. 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim 
-------------------------------------------

> On Fri, 27 Oct 95 08:31:03 -0500 JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> > From:JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 08:31:03 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Kerala Downs Syndrome
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > 
> > David,
> > 
> > Kerala's about 37, the next town over is 92.  :-)
> > (or was 92 and 37)
> >  
> > > May I ask what is the normal life expectancy in Kerala?  This may have a bea
> ring
> > >  on the lack of expression of carcinoma.
> > > David Walland
> > > University of Bristol (UK)
> > > David.Walland@bristol.ac.uk
> > 
> > Couldn't resist.  :-)
> > Contrary to all the data radiation MUST be dangerous :-)
> > 
> > Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> > jmuckerheide@delphi.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>