Re: Response to Cohen's $2500 offer

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Group,

I'd add to Wade's statement that:  Ken Bogen's model applies not "generally
accepted principles of radiobiology", but rather the current fundamental
knowledge of biology and oncology of the cell and organism, reflecting current 
explicit knowledge of the cellular and molecular processes and response to
damage, beyond just "radiobiology". His biology model predicts Cohen's results 
and uranium miner data by reflecting current processes and damage/repair
mechanisms. Kondo, as a geneticist, Fleck in Germany (Austria??), Leonard in
the US, and several others, have taken different approaches to biological
models based on fundamental cellular/molecular biology, (not to mention Bond,
Feinendegen, Sondhaus, and Weilpolski, with microdosimetry, and molecular
epidemiology, all with clear confirmation of biopositive stress response
applied to low-dose radiobiology of cell/DNA damage. (BTW, DNA damage is
essentially irrelevant since even at lethal doses there isn't enough from
radiation to make a difference to the natural DNA damage/response rate of your 
cells.) 

I'd note also, that it's interesting when HPs say in these discussions we
should "wait for the biologists to tell us", then depend on a bunch of
billiard-ball-view-of-biology physicists, while covering their ears, closing
their eyes, stomping their feet, and screaming when the biologists speak
(especially since the mid-late '80s), and especially since Dr. Luckey's highly 
credible books and articles (if your eyes are open :-) and Dr. Kondo's very
important book, along with dozens of studies and UNSCEAR 94, after 12 years of 
trying to report on (only part of) the biology evidence that contradicts the
scientifically bankrupt, bureaucratically flush, "linear hypothesis", (even
with the record of disinformation included by ICRP/NCRP in changing the report 
after it was approved. 

And note that the strongest voices for science are those who have a rigorous
knowledge of science, and without a conflict of interest, from Cohen and
Luckey to dozens of others; along with many who put their careers at risk (as
well known in HPS where HP and radbiology leaders have been scuttled for
telling the truth)! Fortunately, some vigorous leaders now retired and more
able to speak without fear than before (and some others with more personal
interests and agendas). There's the HPS Presidents' Position Statement "on
risk", with Wade's work on collecting data; and incoming President Raabe on
the decades of beagles work and the radium dial painters data, that directly
contradict the "linear hypothesis" (which he produced even in the 1981 int'l
conference on radium biology - see HPJ 1983 Suppl 1 where he shows an
asymptotic 400 cGy "effective threshold" based on the data, God forbid :-). 

DOE then terminated the Argonne "Center for Human Radiobiology" in the 80s
with more than a 1000 cases still alive, even though the program had largely
obfuscated the data. But Robley Evans stated "the Emporer has no clothes": in
all the world-wide data reported at the conference, (US, UK, Germany, Japan,
etc., ~4000 cases in the US alone, beyond his 600 at MIT in his HPJ 74 article 
that trashed BEIR '72 "science", and a decade more of analysis), he reported
that "no health effects in any case under 50 uCi systemic uptake - about 1000
cGy". (See also Kondo for a summary of non-bone/nasal cancer and other health
effects, and lower mortality for 20 years, and increased longevity. Neuberger
reported, from a review of dial painters for lung cancer at the Nov 96 ANS
meeting, that one of the problems in reviewing lung cancer today is that the
dial painters of the '20s were living to a mean age of 77 while their 20s
working women counterparts had mean ages of 53.) The killing of CHRs throws
real fear into RERF, which has learned how to obfuscate/manipulate data "for
health"; especially after DOE's sudden effort to move it from the NAS in the
US to a program under a DOE total data-control program, and failing that, set
up a data-control "review committee" to "set direction" for it. 

Current efforts to obfuscate are getting more desperate, and the smell is
getting stronger. (Not least of which is "its politically correct" and "it
works for me".) Nuclear technology will rise from the ashes as the corpse of
this "body of knowledge" decays. But only when the massive costs of false
standards are cut. 

> JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote, in part:
> 
> > Reading Bernie's article shows that such presumed correlations
> > don't exist. (Although such "presuming" is the sole basis for the LNT.  :-)
> > This implies that Pittsburg and the Monongahela Valley, etc, etc. are now
> > "clean"?  And the Gulf and Atlantic coasts are "dirty?  :-)  Bernie tested
> > correlations that could show such relationships; and his data is available for
> > you to test any others you think better. But note the extremely strong
> > correlations from this massive database, and the limited effect of actual
> > significant changes (like the limited effect of eliminating all of CA, FL, and
> > AZ for the effect of retirement migration). He has so much well-defined data
> > that he does, and you can, perform credible subset comparisons as "separate
> > studies" to test such comparisons (download the data! do it yourself!? don't
> > just accept the disinformation of the committed linear model interests!)
> 
> Dear Group:
> Jim Muckerheide fails to mention that Ken Bogen at LLNL has created a
> model, using generally accepted principles of radiobiology, which
> PREDICTS Cohen's results.
> It would seem that Cohen's results, now confirmed by an INDEPENDENT
> MODEL, must be considered valid. If not, what have we come to?
> 
> -- 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Wade
> 
> <hwade@talltown.com>
> 
> H.Wade Patterson
> 1116 Linda Lane
> Lakeview OR 97630
> ph 541 947-4974
> 
> I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.  There is
> something unfair about it.  It is hitting below the intellect.
> Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, iii, 1891