Re: TMI and Lung Cancer

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

John Moulder wrote:

> Another example of "publish by press release".  The article appears to be in 
> an issue of Environmental Health Perspectives that has not yet been received 
> by subscribers (see just got the December issue last week).
>
> So we are expected to react to this without being able to review the science.  
> By the time we have had a chance to critique the study it will not be news.

No different than the Cardis et al IARC study, or the EPA miner lung cancer
study, instantly funded and pushed into the literature by the "Friends of LNT" 
($), without data for review, and with $millions in effective PR to get it
worldwide before consideration by any reviewers. ("Env Health Perspectives" is 
one thing; what does it take to get instant publishing of Wing's junk in JAMA, 
Cardis in Nature and reported in all industry literature, and EPA's "another
junk math projection" in JNCI and reported everywhere instantly as part of a
national EPA disinformation campaign.) 
 
> What I know:
> 1)  There is no dosimetry.
> 2)  The definition of "exposed" is based on distance and wind direction.
> 3)  There may not be any adjustment for smoking or radon.
> 4)  The study claims that there may have been short high level releases that 
> went undetected.  Do I need to comment of the plausibility of an exposure that 
> could deliver 20-200 rem to a substantial geographic area without being 
> noticed?
> 5)  None of the isotopes known to have been released are associated with lung 
> cancer or leukemia
> 6)  The isotopes known to have been released would have caused thyroid cancer 
> long before they caused lung cancer.
> 
> This looks like Sternglass-quality epidemiology.
> 
> And we wonder why the public is misinformed about radiation risks ):
 
If NCRP/BEIR didn't back the public message that any radiation can kill, this
kind of garbage would not have any media credibility. Many crack-pots argue
that many things are "devastating". Only if "science" gives it credibility
does it become a significant public concern. At least with EMF there were
interests vested in demanding and providing credible science. Not so with
ionizing radiation.  

> John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu)
> Radiation Biology Group
> Medical College of Wisconsin

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com