[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Qigong
Oh I just hate to sound like an awful skeptic, but I really do wonder about
experiments done at something called the Columbus Polarity Therapy Institute
(see the URL Jim posted), and I really do wonder just how "objective" not to
speak of careful, those measurements were. I know from personal experience
how easy it is to see the results you want to see on a meter. I am not at
all surprised that Doug Boccuzzi's request to use a pocket dosimeter was
rejected, and that, frankly, is a tipoff. Sorry, Doug. Qigong sounds
completely phony to me, and I do dismiss it out-of-hand.
Part of my hard core skepticism comes from my daughter's experience as the
intake nurse at a university student health center. She has described to me
the many students who came to the health center after trying one or another
alternative medical treatment and getting nothing but pain, infection, and
lack of effective treatment for whatever was wrong. Particularly sad were
the acupuncture victims who came in with bad infections and in some cases
phlebitis, and the people with untreated malignant tumors.
Sure these things are "popular." Who wouldn't prefer to believe in magic,
something inexplicable, etc. And Jim, the very reason we are (or at least I
am) so skeptical about the LNT theory is that there is no human health
evidence for it and plenty for a threshold of one sort or another. The
evidence against the LNT, and even the evidence for radiation hormesis (of
which I was very skeptical) comes from many independent sources and
observations, and is apparently repeatable. I'll believe this qigong stuff
when (a) a number of true double-blind experiments have been documented and
(that's "and," not "or")(b) when the qigong practitioners let Doug use his
pocket dosimeter.
Clearly only my own opinion.
Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@mediaone.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 6:51 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Qigong
Douglas Boccuzzi wrote:
>
> Perhaps this subject isn't quite medical physics material, but it
does
> relate to "medical science", and Chris Alston posted a message about
> the upcoming "gathering" which my fair city will be hosting.
>
> The practice of qigong is alarmingly popular, and there are quite a
> few pseudo-scientific claims being made by its followers. One of
> these amazing feats, which Chris mentioned, is the ability to alter
> nuclear decay rates of certain isotopes. I for one hope this is not
> true, since I'm sure to fail my board exams if the qigong masters are
> correct.
>
> I've read a few of the "papers" discussing this experiment (available
> from a number of qigong-related web sites), whereby a qigong master
> "directs" his qi at distances up to thousands of km (from US to
China,
> in one case) to either increase or decrease the decay rate (observed
> counts) of Am-241, usually by an amount on the order of 1%.
> Apparently qi (vaguely defined as some sort of life force or energy)
> can either travel along the curved surface of the earth, or directly
> through it. Independent reproduction of such studies are difficult,
> since qigong masters are usually reluctant to perform these tricks
> repeatedly under controlled conditions, since exerting qi seems to
> drain them of their life force (is anyone surprised by this?).
>
> I've had several friends who have practiced a particular form of
> qigong, where the master claimed other talents, such as being able to
> emit from his body radiation flux great enough to overload the
> measuring instruments during an experiment (I wonder if the
> practitioners exceed the MPD from this exposure). When I offered a
> pocket dosimeter for the purpose of grossly detecting this radiation,
> I was (oddly enough) refused the opportunity.
>
> No one would be more excited and interested than I if the qigong
> claims were true, and I think these effects should be examined
> scientifically and not dismissed out-of-hand. However, extraordinary
> claims require extraordinary proof, and until someone demonstrates
> some peer-reviewed evidence that such things occur as advertised, I
> will continue to regard this as fringe, potentially dangerous
> anti-science.
>
> Douglas Boccuzzi
> St. Luke's-Roosevelt and Beth Israel Medical Center
> New York
Interesting. Effects on count rate are not limited to Qi-gong. See
for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10394674&form=6&db=m
&Dopt=b
Joe Talnagi, who conducted the radiation measurements, is at the
Ohio State Nuclear Reactor. As a pretty strong skeptic, Joe had to
be convinced to continue conducting the measurements, with
increasing control and counting sensitivity, after the initial
"unexplainable" suppression of the count rate during the application
of "healing energy". Unlike many, he went ahead and collaborated on
the paper - many who find "politically incorrect results don't. Now
that the real "anti-science." :-)
Don't worry about your board exams, you'd probably be ok if you said
the LNT were true; and certainly be wrong if you said that "healers"
affect the count rate. Academic health physics radiation effects
exams don't test what's "true", only what's "politically acceptable"
and accurately reflects the "training." No original thought allowed :-)
Don't know why reporting on valid objective observations should be
considered "pseudo-science" or "anti-science", and consider the LNT
to be "science". Sounds too much like "1984" to me :-) [15 years
AGO!? and it came true? :-) ]
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health
==============================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html