Re: Again 8 kB

[Dan Burnstein <npro1@ziplink.net>]

Franz Schoenhofer too easily dismisses the ideas of Jim Muckerheide and his
contribution to the ongoing debate over the impact of low-level radiation,the
implications for public policy and the ongoing expenditures of literally hundreds
of $billions of dollars.

In our meetings of the Mass. Advisory Council on Radiation Protection, Jim does
present a lot of scientific studies to back up his ideas regarding hormeisis.  He
engages most times in a substantive debate.  However, his fierce partisanship for
the safety of what he calles low level radiation exposure and its healthful
effects does not answer my question - at what point does radiation go from being
an immune system stimulant to being a long term health threat?  Probably it
depends on the age, health, type of exposure...but these are important issues.

Also, Jim has a habit of excluding cell studies as not being a predictor of human
health impact when they diverge from his agenda and citing cell studies when they
agree with his agenda.  That being said, Jim Muckerheide has engaged in an
extensive high level scientific discourse with everyone who comes in personal
contact with him, and in particular the Mass. Advisory Council on Radiation
Protection.

I do not agree with his conclusions that all valid studies indicate that
so-called low-level radiation exposure (as high as 25-50R) are safe and
healthful, however, no one who has engaged in a serious dialogue with Muckerheide
would think for a minute that he is not a part of the community of radiation
protection scientists.  Jim raises the issues of whether scientific judgement is
affected by financial interest - this is a worthwhile issue that needs a rational
defense, not censorship.  At what point do you experts think that we citizens are
properly protected?  Radiation protection has become a big business funded by tax
payer dollars.

We all have a stake and many lay persons want to engage with the radiation
protection professionals and find out what kind of data points do you have at the
low level exposure points?  What controls did you use?  What other factors were
present?  What conclusions should we draw?

At least Jim has the courage of his convictions to raise hard and difficult
questions and for that he is to be launded.  He is not the person I would hire to
be a nuclear industry regulator, but he is the knowledgeable type of person I
would hire as a writer, critic, commentator, professor, consultant, or for a
panel discussion before a thoughtful audience of policy makers.  Generally I sit
back and learn from the radsafe postings, and I hope other citizens, journalists
and policy makers are doing likewise.  You all are very generous with your time
and willingness to share your erudition.

Please send me a copy of the same message that Richard Davies requested.

Thanks,
Dan Burnstein


Richard Davies wrote:

> Could you please send me a copy of the message which was sent as i have not
> had the oportunity to read it and would like to do so.
>
> could you also put the word info in the subject as this will help me find it.
>
> thank you.
>
> At 21:11 26/11/99 +0000, you wrote:
> >Mr. Muckerheide,
> >
> >In your "answer" you stated that your message was intended to be
> >distributed to the RADSAFE list. This means that you sent a 42 (forty two)
> >kB message deliberately to more than 2000 persons, of whom only a very
> >small percentage (I am very polite, I should rather say a very small
> >permille) is interested in your message. Your message was not only hardly
> >understandable for me (I suppose also for other RADSAFERs), it was a
> >violation of the privacy of persons and patients involved, it was stating
> >non-existing "facts" from isolated cases without any scientific background.
> >Your statements are not scientific, but only directed by your attitude to
> >promote your hate against the LNT theory. Your reply is another
> >confirmation of that.
> >
> >I have several times also in the RADSAFE newsgroup stated, that nobody can
> >prove that the LNT theory is valid and that nobody can prove that it is not
> >valid. Isn't that enough? I do not want to get into details, because a
> >discussion with you about LNT is as useless as trying to convince
> >Greenpeace that what they disseminate about nuclear power and radioactivity
> >is mere nonsense.
> >
> >I do not know, whether you have tried to get into the media (papers, TV),
> >but if I were an anti-nuclear editor of a paper or a TV-station I would
> >invite you to present your opinions - and then an overwhelming majority of
> >readers and viewers would be totally antinuclear. It would not even need
> >Gofman and the other guys. In educating people to have a balanced view on
> >radiation, nuclear energy etc. we need other persons than you.
> >
> >Your opinion about policy-makers may be right - I cannot judge that from
> >Austria, but you cannot fight them by hatred and by insults. You claim
> >scientific evidences - which you have not presented - but phrases (not
> >phases) like "defrauding the public for personal gain", comparing a
> >government to "organized crime", to talk about criminality, accusations for
> >the HPS president, the ICRP, the "radiation protectionists" for causing the
> >death of people" go much too far and could be cases for the court. To
> >offend organisations like the HPS and the ANS by stating a "self interest"
> >and accusing them of suppressing the questioning LNT policy and ignoring
> >the science goes too far.
> >
> >
> >I conclude for myself that you cannot present any scientific evidence for
> >your claims. On the other hand nobody can present any scientific evidence
> >for the opposite opinion. Therefore your comments - which I have said are
> >going to far in the direction of offence and could be even a case for the
> >court - are more than unnecessary. They do not only not help the efforts of
> >reasonable scientists to put the so called "hazards of radiation" into
> >perspective, but could be a reason for indifferent persons to oppose these
> >efforts.
> >
> >
> >So I ask you again to refrain from such messages. Send it to your friends
> >privately. We know that some journalists are watching RADSAFE and I think
> >that no RADSAFER wants to have your private opinion presented in the mass
> >media as the opinion of the "radiation protection scientists".
> >
> >Franz
> >
> >
> >Franz Schoenhofer
> >Habicherg. 31/7
> >A-1160 Vienna
> >Austria
> >Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
> >Fax.: same number
> >mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
> >e-mail: schoenho@via.at
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> If you have received this email in error please notify the
> system administrator at:
> BUILTH WELLS HIGH SCHOOL
> admin@builth-hs.powys.sch.uk
> or contact us on
> (01982) 553292.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ************************************************************************
> 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