Re: Did A-Bomb exposure lead to better

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Dr. Goldsmith writes:
 
>         In searching for good news to tell the public, John Cameron must 
> have been pretty careful not to read all the news.  In its recent publication
> "Effects of A-Bomb Radiation on the Human Body"  Shigematsu I, (Ed), 1995,
> Harwood Academic publishers/ Bunkodo Co. Ltd, Tokyo, from the Hiroshima 
> International Council for Medical Care if the Radiation-Exposed,  
> (Shigematsu is with the Radiation Effects Research Foundation)
> we find the following  Table 2 in the Chapter on Aging and Life Span 
> :Shimizu Y and Kato, H, are the chapter authors. (p. 327)
>             Comparisons of Risks of Cancer and non-malignant Disease
> 
>                                    Relative Risks 
>                                     at 2 Gy        Excess Deaths/Gy
>                                                  per 10,000 per-yr
>                                                                              
> Non-malignant Dis. 
> Total                           1.06 (1.02, 1.09)    1.18 (0.51,1.19) 
>  Under 40 ATB, Obs. 1966-85     1.19 (1.10, 1.29)    1.69 (0.90,2.62) 
> 
> Cancer       Total              1.78 (1.64,1.92)    10.00 ( 8.36,11.8)

Perhaps Dr. Goldsmith didn't understand the point about the survivors living
longer, but this table doesn't seem to address the issue. Sohei Kondo's
"Health Effects of Low-level Radiation" (MPP and Kinki U. Press, 1993),
presents the data that John is referring to (I thought from Shimizu 1988, I
can check if anyone wants, or provide the table when I can get the book, which 
anyone who is interested in the actual data should get). 

The survivor data shows the death rate by age group to be essentially
identical below age 55, and the suvivors having an increasingly lower death
rate in each 5-yr age group, with a dramatic difference at >80 years, with a
greater difference in men than in women. 

>         Let us as scientists quit trying to slant the news and 
> be faithful to the best evidence we can transmit to the public.  

This is somewhat disingenuous in defending positions that are wholey based on
more than 25 years of gov't agency disinformation missions and campaigns,
failing to report actual data and actual suppression and termination of
research programs, funding, and scientists and careers, that find and report
contrary data, while only the successful acquirers of gov't grants and
self-interested defenders of the gov't orthodoxy are the leaders of the
"study" and "review" committees. (Which is not to say that every member of
every review committee is influenced, but these are "consensus" efforts, and
even those who have futiley blunted their swords as appointed members hesitate 
to speak out, including "explanations" that we've all heard, about fear of
retaliation in their funding and programs, and even often their loyalty in
retirement to the funding of their associated programs.) 

A very senior scientist, who does have a substantial independent voice, said
in response to a request: "I can't testify, I'll lose my funding".)  Look at
the Argonne CHR radium-burden population program, the Nuclear Shipyard Worker
Study, the >5rem in a year study, and the careers of many individuals. DOE
termination of the CHR, and other DOE actions, have sent loud messages to the
RERF and others about protecting their futures. You will find their reports
very carefully written to avoid pointing out the Japanese survivor data in
such clear terms in defense (eg, the series in the Rad Research suppl 1994). 

Note though, that CHR itself was very careful. But, Prof Robley Evans at the
1981 Int'l Conf (HPJ, Vol 44, Suppl 1, 1983) again pointed out that there is
no linear response, that no case in the thousands of cases at <1000 rad, 250
uCi ingestion, had a bone sarcoma or head carcinoma (contrary to fed policy
and the "linear model", in what was then all of the 1000's of known/followed
US and intl data, far beyond the absolutely devastating technical case he made 
in the HPJ 1974 article "Radium in Man" from the MIT data (~600 cases) that
totally refuted the linear model and the technical integrity of BEIR 1972.
DOE, starting in 1983, suppressed the data (no more annual reports, no more
meetings/conferences), and the research (no more new cases, no updates in
1986), and the reporting, and the program (dead by 1992, and the archives not
dispositioned where anyone interested can get at them, at least as of last
year). 

Let's be clear on who's being "pretty careful not to read all the news."  :-)

Again, while most of those who accept the linear model as handed down on
tablets from BEIR do not see this reality, it is certainly not a prediliction
of those of us who have bothered to look at the data to be motivated and
interested in mis-representing the data for personal self-interest. Certainly
not as much as some of those whose very existence is totally dependent on the
largess of their gov't agency funders, and the funds generated by unwarranted
public fear (since no one else substantially supports radiation biology and
science, unlike chemicals and other areas in which substantial work is done
by, or gets support from, those self-interested, dishonest, "industry" types,
who themselves mostly stay out of the radiation issue as long as the costs,
which do NOT go significantly to either the research or HP communities, but
are costs absorbed by others affected by the rules, including occupational
workers, waste management treatment, disposal, etc, are wholely passed along
to the (unwitting) public). 

OTOH, some with NO personal or organizational self-interest, like John
Cameron, and the HPS itself!  are beginning to care about this ongoing many-
$$100s-billions (that's $$100,000s millions  :-)  scam of the public.  (As HPS 
President Dr. Marvin Goldman wrote in the Feb 1995 HPS Newsletter, an
estimated $$trillion(US) for site "cleanup" in the US alone. This does not
mention the world, not to mention $$10s billions per year for other onerous
and costly and irrelevant "rad protection" expenditures with negligible public 
health benefits (many of which are discussed here by people from all aspects
of HP), PLUS the actual destruction of the real and potential contributions of 
radiation and nuclear science and technology to humanity. 

This is being fostered primarily by our gov't agencies, including >$100
million for "dose reconstruction" with the sole effect of fostering public
fear, while suppressing work and data on highly exposed populations with good
dosimetry that do not support the fictitious "uncertainties" that are used to
justify the "linear model", for their own conflicted self-interest, using and
abusing the science community in the process. 

>         John Goldsmith, M.D. Professor of Epidemiology,
>        Ben Gurion University, < Gjohn@BGUMAIL.bgu.ac.il>


Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com