Re: Re[2]: Leukemia in Astronauts

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

> A person has died, and even a dead person has the right that 
> intimacy should be respected. 

This thread and interpretations have taken on a life of its own. 
These will be my last comments on the entire thread. If there are 
those who still want to take a phrase and interpret what was in 
one's mind when the thoughts were put down on paper, so be it. 
This whole episode is indicative of the mass media attention 
regarding the Clinton - Intern escapade.

1. The thread started when one questioned whether or not the fact 
that Alan Shepard (MIGHT) have died from leukemia, and whether 
there was cause to look into the cosmic radiation and the onset of 
leukemia. A simple enough question.

2. I responded, no, there was no reason. I stated that he died at 
74. I also then in my own way, to demonstrate that any attempt to 
correlate a leukemia death solely based on the fact that the 
individual was an astronaut was as ludicrous as attempting to 
make that same correlation based on all of the other factor's in an 
individual's life. Unfortunately, based on Franz's dissection of my 
post, I also included the individual's "amount of sex". I don't know 
about anyone on Radsafe, but I don't know how much sex any 
individual has, unless I happen to be the participant. It was just a 
human factor, and environmental factor. Nothing more, nothing less.

3. The above highlights that I was not focusing on his sex life, nor 
any other part of his life. This holds true for any other individual who 
happens to be involved in some form of ionizing or non-ionizing 
radiation, and is unfortunate to have died. The initial implication of 
the thread was,, he was exposed to radiation, is there a reason to 
seek out a correlation. If he were an X-Ray Technologist, would the 
same question have been asked?

4. My father died of leukemia 10 months ago. I said he wasn't 
exposed to any extensive radiation or other forms of environmental 
causative agents. Appears "some" missed that association and the 
reasoning behind my original comments. I said people die. I don't 
know the "amount of sex" in my father's life. I know there were at 
least 4 occasions he MUST have had sex. THAT wasn't the point. 

5. Dissection of one's comments is going to happen. It would be 
better to read the entire thought and if one then disagrees with the 
overall conclusion, opinion or innuendos, believing them to be 
unscientific, then take exception to the comments. But please, 
don't insinuate that I (personally) was attacking a man's lifestyle 
when all that was being stated was, there is no logical reason, no 
scientific data that even suggests that there could possibly be a 
statistical correlation to a man's death, and the sole factor that he 
also happened to be an astronaut. and in so being, was exposed to 
cosmic radiation, as have been many others for even longer 
durations.

At this point, I will cease attempting to justify what I said in my 
original post on the subject. Accept it or reject it. That is up to 
those who still want to pursue the "interpretative" words in the post.

------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
sandyfl@earthlink.net
sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
        
ICN Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -

The opinions expressed are solely, absolutely, positively, definitely those of the author, and NOT my employer