The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
Rolf Martens
[10.12.00]
In article <90uot0$30m$9...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca says...
[on NG 'sci.energy':]
>
>Rolf Martens (rolf.m...@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
>: Certainly, old infamous liar on energy matters Scott Nudds,
>: the bourgeois LaRouche group has a number of negative
>: aspects too.
>
> I look forward to Martens providing credible evidence that
>I have ever lied. So far, he and his cohorts have failed in
>every attempt after almost a decade of trying.
>
> Poor little man...
How can I resist such a sympathetically-worded (as usual)
appeal from that person who "has NEVER lied"??
How about - just for some low-dose evidence of this
flagrantly obvious fact - your so "erudite" bullshit lie,
on 'sci energy' a month ago or so:
[Scott Nudds:]
>Radiation hormesis is bullshit. Always has been.
In your case, there's little doubt that you brought this
silly piece of misinformation *consciously*.
Here's my reply to it once more; it was originally sent
on 12 November:
Re: Slowpoke...some Nudds-bull, on low-dose radiation
In article <8ubab8$7m5$6...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca says...
>
>fungee (fun...@my-deja.com) wrote:
>: In article <8u38o8$qgo$4...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
>: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
>: > Radiation hormesis is bullshit. Always has been.
No, on the contrary. Mr Nudds is bullshit & always has been.
Here's just one other small example of this.
>: I'm not so sure. What follows is from
>: http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html
>: ExtensiveEvidence Suggesting Hormesis
>
> I'm sure...
>
>
>Vol. 324 No. 7
>
>The New England Journal of Medicine
>
>
>Feb. 14, 1991
>HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO LOW LEVELS OF
>IONIZING RADIATION: BEIR V
>
>Prepared by the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing
>Radiation, National Researdh Council. 421 pp. Washington, D.C.,
>National Academy Press, 1990. $35.
..........
>The Case Against Hormesis
..........
>Contrary to various claims [40,41], there are no reliable human
>data, nor is there any known biophysical mechanism supporting
>hormetic effects of low-dose ionizing radiation [1,13,14].
The first of those propositions probably was bullshit even back
in 1990/91, when this was written/published. The second of them
perhaps was not false then. It certainly is so today.
From my 'UNITE! Info #120en: Debate on Chernobyl & reports' (in
7 parts), of 09.05.00, I'm quoting from a 1998 article by Myron
Pollycove which I reproduced in that Info:
[QUOTE:]
HUMAN BIOLOGY, EPIDEMIOLOGY, AND LOW-DOSE
IONIZING RADIATION
Myron Pollycove, M.D., Visiting Medical Fellow
USNRC, Washington, DC
Professor Emeritus, Laboratory Medicine and Radiology
University of California, San Francisco, CA
Presented NCRP Scientific Committee 1-6 Meeting
February 17, 1998
............
[on the - relatively recently discovered - biophysical
mechanism supporting hormesis:]
Antioxidant prevention, enzymatic repair of DNA damage, and re-
moval of mis- or unrepaired DNA alterations by apoptosis, dif-
ferentiation, necrosis, and the immune system, sequentially re-
duce DNA damage from about 10^6 DNA alterations/cell/d to about
1 mutation/cell/d. These mutations accumulate in stem cells
during a lifetime with progressive DNA damage-control impairment
associated with aging and malignant growth. A comparatively neg-
ligible number of mutations, an average of about 10^-7 muta-
tions/cell/d, is produced by low LET radiation background of
0.1 cGy/y.
The remarkable efficiency of this biosystem is increased by the
adaptive responses to low-dose ionizing radiation. Each of the
sequential functions that prevent, repair, and remove DNA damage
are adaptively stimulated by low-dose ionizing radiation in
contrast to their impairment by high-dose radiation. The bio-
logic effect of radiation is not determined by the number of
mutations it creates, but by its effect on the biosystem that
controls the relentless enormous burden of oxidative DNA damage.
At low doses, radiation stimulates this biosystem with conse-
quent significant decrease of metabolic mutations. This reduc-
tion of gene mutations in response to low-dose radiation pro-
vides a biological explanation of the statistically significant
observations of mortality and cancer mortality risk decrements,
and contradicts the biophysical concept of the basic mechanisms
upon which, ultimately, the NCRP's confidence in the LNT hypo-
thesis is based.
..........
[and there are more details on this in the article too; now
for some mentions of studies which very clearly have demon-
strated hormesis - e.g. one with very high statistical power,
as Pollycove says:]
..........
EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES
What are some of the statistically significant epidemiologic
studies that demonstrate risk decrements (hormesis) as predicted
by the adaptive responses to low-dose radiation of the DNA da-
mage-control biosystem? 4 For several decades increased longevi-
ty and decreased cancer mortality have been reported in popula-
tions exposed to high background radiation. Established radia-
tion protection authorities consider such observations to be
spurious or inconclusive because of unreliable public health
data or undetermined confounding factors such as pollution of
air, water and food, smoking, income, education, medical care,
population density, and other socioeconomic variables. Recently,
however, several epidemiologic statistically significant con-
trolled studies have demonstrated that exposure to low or in-
termediate levels of radiation are associated with positive
health effects.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of UNSCEAR, in his cur-
rent review of hormesis cites recent data showing hormetic ef-
fects in humans from the former Soviet Union.5 After radiation
exposure from a thermal explosion in 1957, 7852 persons living
in 22 villages in the Eastern Urals were divided into three ex-
posure groups averaging 49.6 cGy, 12.0 cGy, and 4.0 cGy and fol-
lowed for 30 years. Tumor-related mortality was 28%, 39%, and
27% lower in the 49.6 cGy, 12.00 cGy, and 4.0 cGy groups, res-
pectively, than in the nonirradiated control population in the
same region.
[Note, 10.05.00, after this was first posted: The radiation
unit which the author is using here, cGy, of course means cen-
tigray, one-hundredth of a Gy (Gray). For "practical" purposes,
and not introducing too much inaccuracy, the reader may "trans-
late" this unit into millisievert (mSv), the unit I've been
using above in this Info, as follows: 1 cGy = 10 mSv. - RM]
In the 49.6 cGy and 12.0 cGy groups the difference from the con-
trols was statistically significant (Figure 1). [Note: Sorry,
I cannot reproduce the figures here. - RM] Epidemiologic
studies showing beneficial effects of low doses of radiation in
atomic bomb survivors (Figure 2) and other populations were re-
viewed by Sohei Kondo, Professor of Radiation Biology, Atomic
Energy Research Institute, Kinki University, Osaka, Japan.6 In-
cluded are the apparently beneficial effects of low doses of
external gamma rays on the life span of radium-dial painters and
the significantly lower mortality from cancers at all sites of
residents of Misasa, an urban area with radon spas, than resi-
dents of the suburbs of Misasa (Figure 3).
These beneficial effects are consistent with the findings of B.
L. Cohen, Professor of Physics, University of Pittsburgh, that
relate the incidence of lung cancer to radon exposure in nearly
90% of the population of the United States.7 The 1601 counties
selected for adequate permanence of residence provide extremely
high-power statistical analysis.
After applying the BEIR IV 8 correction for variations in smo-
king frequency, the study shows a very strong tendency for lung
cancer mortality to decrease with increasing mean radon level in
homes, in sharp contrast to the BEIR IV theoretical increased
mortality derived by linear no threshold extrapolation of ef-
fects in uranium miners exposed to very high radon concentra-
tions.
The discrepancy between theoretical and measured slopes is 20
standard deviations (Figure 4). Rigorous statistical analysis of
54 socioeconomic, seven physical, and multiple geographic va-
riables as possible confounding factors, both single and in
combination, demonstrates no significant decrease in the dis-
crepancy. The multiple independent requirements that a possible
unknown confounding factor must meet, make its existence highly
improbable. A reasonable explanation is that stimulated biologi-
cal mechanisms more than compensate for the radiation "insult"
and are protective against cancer in a low-dose, low-dose-rate
range.
The thirteen-year U.S. Nuclear Shipyard Workers study of the
health effects of low-dose radiation was performed by the Johns
Hopkins Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and
Hygiene, reported to the Department of Energy in 1991 9 and re-
ported in UNSCEAR 1994.4 Professor Arthur C. Upton, who concur-
rently chaired the NAS BEIR V Committee on "Health Effects of
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," 10 chaired the
Technical Advisory Panel that advised on the research and re-
viewed results.
The results of this study contradict the conclusions of the
BEIR V report 10 that small amounts of radiation have risk - the
LNT hypothesis. From the database of almost 700,000 shipyard
workers, including about 108,000 nuclear workers, three closely
matched study groups were selected, consisting of 28,542 nuclear
workers with working lifetime doses 5 mSv (many received doses
well in excess of 50 mSv), 10,462 nuclear workers with doses
<5 mSv and 33,352 non-nuclear workers. Deaths in each of the
groups were classified as due to: all causes, leukemia, lympha-
tic and hematopoietic cancers, mesothelioma, and lung cancer.
The results demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in
the standardized mortality ratio for the two groups of nuclear
workers for 'death from all causes' compared with the non-nuc-
lear workers. For the 5 mSv group of nuclear workers, the highly
significant risk decrement to 0.76, 16 standard deviations below
1.00, of the standard mortality ratio for death from all causes
is inconsistent with the LNT hypothesis and does not appear to
be explainable by the healthy worker effect (Figure 5) 4.
The non-nuclear workers and the nuclear workers were similarly
selected for employment, were afforded the same health care
thereafter, and performed the identical type of work, except for
exposure to 60 Co gamma radiation, with a similar median age of
entry into employment of about 34 years. This provides evidence
with extremely high statistical power that low levels of
ionizing radiation are associated with risk decrements.
..........
[END OF QUOTE]
Scott Nudds, be thine name Old Mudd(s), Ned Ludd or just Dud(s),
Thou canst not be allowed to run Scot Free
With this B-shit propaganda of anti-nuke miseree
Without at least some refute-replies from others including me!
Rolf M.
Re: Slowpoke...some Nudds-bull, on low-dose radiation
Scott Nudds
I am pleased to see that Rolf Martens is not ashamed of standing behind is
conspiracy theory that the FBI are beind what he believes to be the
<nonexistant> disease of AIDS.
It is not at all surprising that Rolf also expressed other amusing ideas
such as his claim that chronic exposure to ionizing Radiation is good for
a person's health.
Martens is clearly part of the Lunatic fringe.
Rolf Martens (rolf.m...@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
: [10.12.00]
: [QUOTE:]
: EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES
: [END OF QUOTE]
--
<---->
entropy
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
> I am pleased to see that Rolf Martens is not ashamed of standing
behind is
> conspiracy theory that the FBI are beind what he believes to be the
> <nonexistant> disease of AIDS.
>
> It is not at all surprising that Rolf also expressed other amusing
ideas
> such as his claim that chronic exposure to ionizing Radiation is good
for
> a person's health.
>
> Martens is clearly part of the Lunatic fringe.
>
on all issues. Is there more evidence for the LNT hypothesis than for
radiation hormesis? Is there ANY evidence for LNT?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Scott Nudds
radiation hormesis.
Is there any evidence for LNT? The question is silly. Evidence shows
that the Linear model underestimates the effects of chronic exposure to
ionizing radiation. LNT provides a mechanism to estimate danger. Those
who question if the curve is slightly sub or superlinear are typically
whining for the purpose of increasing the amount of radiation the pubic is
exposed to.
entropy (entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: Just because he is nutty on most issues doesn't prove that he is wrong
: on all issues. Is there more evidence for the LNT hypothesis than for
: radiation hormesis? Is there ANY evidence for LNT?
: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > I am pleased to see that Rolf Martens is not ashamed of standing
: behind is
: > conspiracy theory that the FBI are beind what he believes to be the
: > <nonexistant> disease of AIDS.
: >
: > It is not at all surprising that Rolf also expressed other amusing
: ideas
: > such as his claim that chronic exposure to ionizing Radiation is good
: for
: > a person's health.
: >
: > Martens is clearly part of the Lunatic fringe.
: Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
: Before you buy.
--
<---->
entropy
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> True, yet he remains nutty on all of the issues identified,
<including>
> radiation hormesis.
>
> Is there any evidence for LNT? The question is silly. Evidence
shows
> that the Linear model underestimates the effects of chronic exposure
to
> ionizing radiation.
What evidence? Name one item.
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> True, yet he remains nutty on all of the issues identified,
<including>
> radiation hormesis.
>
> Is there any evidence for LNT? The question is silly. Evidence
shows
Ah, nothing like a claim of "evidence shows. . ." without any listing
of said evidence.
> that the Linear model underestimates the effects of chronic exposure
to
> ionizing radiation. LNT provides a mechanism to estimate danger.
Those
> who question if the curve is slightly sub or superlinear are typically
> whining for the purpose of increasing the amount of radiation the
pubic is
> exposed to.
Conspiracy hypothesis.
Karl Johanson
Scott Nudds
: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > True, yet he remains nutty on all of the issues identified,
: <including>
: > radiation hormesis.
: >
: > Is there any evidence for LNT? The question is silly. Evidence
: shows
: > that the Linear model underestimates the effects of chronic exposure
: to
: > ionizing radiation.
entropy (entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: What evidence? Name one item.
Vol. 324 No. 7
The New England Journal of Medicine
Feb. 14, 1991
HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO LOW LEVELS OF
IONIZING RADIATION: BEIR V
Prepared by the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation, National Researdh Council. 421 pp. Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press, 1990. $35.
[5]RADIATION-INDUCED CANCER FROM LOW-DOSE
[6]EXPOSURE: AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS
By John W. Gofman. 480 pp. San Francisco, Committee for Nuclear
Responsibility Book Division, 1990. $29.95.
Two national advisory groups have great influence with
regard to the safe conduct of the population through an environment
contaminated with ionizing radiation. These are the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the National
Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of ionizing
Radiation (BEIR). Over the years, both these groups have raised
their estimates of the risk of radiation-induced cancer as new
evidence has accumulated on the delayed adverse effects of
low-level exposure. Now comes a book published by an independent
education group (the Committee for Nudear Responsibility) that
takes strong issue with the most recent report of BEIR (BEIR V).
The author, John W. Gofman, is the founder and former director of
the Biomedical Research Division of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.
Both these works agree that previous assessments of the
dangers of radiation underestimated the risk, but they reach
substantialy different conclusions about the magnitude of the risk,
especially when the radiation is at lower doses (below 10 rem) and
the doses are delivered slowly. Both reports primarily concern
ionizing radiations with a low linear energy transfer, such as
gamma rays or x-rays, as opposed to radiations with a high linear
energy transfer, such as neutrons or alpha particles. We compare
some of the features and major conclusions of these books.
Beginning in 1950, more than 90,000 atomic-bomb survivor
from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were enrolled in a lifetime health
study. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation--an agency
sponsored jointly by the U.S. and Japanese governments--has been in
charge of this study since 1975. Its data provide direct
quantitative evidence of radiation-induced cancer from short-term
exposure of organs at doses of 11 to 15 rem. This prospective study
is the cornerstone of the epidemiologic evidence concerning the
effects of radiation on humans. A substantial body of information
about the health and mortality of the atomic-bomb survivors is in
hand. Most of the people exposed at an early age are still living;
their ultimate fate will provide critical new data in the ongoing
analysis. Recently, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation
altered the architecture of this study in major ways to account for
new dose estimations, shifting thousands of survivors into
different cohort groups and temporarily dropping about 15,000
survivors from the study because of "dose uncertainties."
During the past 40 years, various research organizations,
committea, and governmental agencies have evaluated the atomic-bomb
study and others in humans, plus data in animals, in assessing the
consequences and deriving estimates of risk from exposure to
ionizing radiation. Cancers, leukemias, and genetic effects have
all been demonstrated to result from both short-term and long-term
exposure. Over time, the growing body of scientific evidence
showing that radiation is more hazardous than previously thought
has resulted in upward revisions of the estimates of the risk of
cancer. Since the guidelines for allowable or permissible levels of
exposure to low-level ionizing radiation are based on these risk
estimates, their accuracy has major public health implications.
The BEIR V document evaluates several aspects of the
effects of low-level radiation on humans and animals, including the
induction of leukemia, the induction of cancer both generally and
at specific sites, genetic effects, and the effects of in utero
exposure on brain development and childhood cancers. Three large
chapters examine the induction of cancer and leukemia and formulate
assessments of risk. The other chapters cover scientific principles
and background information, genetic effects, other somatic and
fetal effects, epidemiologic studies involving low doses of
radiation, and data and analysis pertaining to research in animals.
The text is well written, well organized, and extensively
referenced. The executive summary outlines the major conclusions
clearly. Certain sections on mathematical risk models are complex.
Unfortunately, the glossary and index are incomplete, weakening the
overall presentation and the reader's ability to find information
quickly. For example, "dose-rate effectiveness factor" is an
important concept in this work, and although we found it mentioned
or discussed at least 17 times in the text, the index only noted 2
of the minor mentions. Some other key words and concepts are not
indexed at all.
The second of these books, that by Gofman, focuses almost
exclusively on the induction of cancer in humans as a result of
low-level ionizing radiation. The book is well organized, clear,
exhaustively detailed, and comprehensively referenced. As a result,
lay persons or students of other disciplines will be able to master
the information with some effort. Through the use of raw data,
graphs, tables, charts, and calculations, the reader is taken step
by step through the complexities of physics, statistics, and
epidemiology. Some sections are highly technical. The book is
organized into 25 major chapters, each of which lays the scientific
foundation for the next, into which it flows, although some
chapters could also stand alone. The 12 supporting chapters provide
additional analysis or examples of key points made in the main body
of the book. There are frequent cross-references from one section
to another. Extensive direct quotations from other reports
facilitate an understanding of the views of other analysts. The
"index and glossary" is one of the most comprehensive and
thoughtful we have seen--brief definitions often appear with the
index entry, flagged entries locate the meaning of a term or phrase
in context, and even images and phrases have their own entria.
Some of Gotman's major conclusions about the induction of
cancer from low-level ionizing radiation are that (1) there are
adequate human epidemiologic data on the effects of radiation at
low doses to quantify risks directly at those dose levels, without
extrapolating from studies of high doses; (2) there is no safe
dose or dose-rate -- i.e., there is no threshold below which there
is no risk; (3) there is no protection offered from fractionation
or the slow delivery of low total doses -- i.e.,
dose-rate-effectiveness factors, which predict decreased risk under
these slow-dose circumstances, should not be used for humans; (4)
in the low- dose range, the risk of cancer is possibly more severe
per dose-unit than in the moderate- and high-dose ranges -- i.e.,
the dose-response curve may be supralinear; (5) the approximate
lifetime yield of fatal cancer in the low-dose range is 27 excess
deaths from cancer per 10,000 person-rem (wholebody dose) in
populations of mixed ages, but for young persons the risk is even
higher; (6) over the course of several decades, about 400,000
people in Europe and the Soviet Union combined could die of cancer
resulting from long-term exposure to fallout from Chernobyl, and
(7) there is no scientific validation for the concept of hormesis
(a net beneficial effect from radiation).
Gofman devotes 13 chapters to a detailed analysis of the
atomic-bomb data base, and he relies heavily on those findings and
other evidence in humans in deriving the conclusions listed above.
As part of this process, he presents the raw data on mortality that
were accumulated from 1950 to 1982 for the survivors of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Although he is sharply critical of the ways in which
the Radiation Effects Research Foundation is retroactively altering
the atomic-bomb study (e.g., dismantling cohort groups and creating
new ones) in order to account for new dose estimates, Gofman
supports the use of improved dosimetry. He demonstrates the effect
of a simple method of parallel analysis that he calls
"constant-cohort, dual-dosimetry," which allows the incorporation
of new dose estimates but leaves the original prospective
architecture and cohort groups of the study intact. He pleads that
failure to preserve continuity in this "uniguely valuable database"
will invalidate its legitimacy as a true prospective epidemiologic
study and throw into question the reliability of future results.
By contrast, some of the major conclusions of BEIR V about
the effects of low-level ionizing radiation are that (1) there are
insufficient epidemiologic data at low doses to quantify directly
the risk of cancer in humans at those levels, and extrapolation
from higher doses (above 10 rem) is necessary; (2) epidemiologic
data cannot exclude the existence of a threshold in the
millisievert dose range (1 millisievert equals 0.1 rem), and
therefore the possibility cannot be ruled out that there are no
risks from exposures comparable to the natural background level;
(3) for low doses of radiation with a low linear energy transfer
delivered slowly, the lifetime risk is less, "possibly by a
dose-rate-effectiveness factor of 2 or more"; (4) for cancer
other than leukemia, the dose-response curve is linear throughout
the dose range under 400 rem, and for leukemia it is linear
quadratic; (5) the approximate lifetime yield of fatal cancer
(assuming short-term 10-rem whole body exposure to gamma rays per
person) is eight excess deaths from cancer per 10,000 person-rem
for populations of mixed ages, but for children the risk is
probably twice as high; (6) in utero exposure can cause childhood
cancers and leukemias, and possibly disease in adulthood; and (7)
the most sensitive gestational age for radiation-induced mental
retardation is 8 to 15 weeks, with the risk being a 4 percent
chance of retardation per 10 rem of exposure.
Although the findings (and methods) of these two reports
differ on major points, there are substantial areas of agreement.
Both find radiation more hazardous than was previously believed.
Both find that the dose-dependent excess of cancer is best
expressed with a "relative" risk estimate or model (i.e., "the
number of excess cancers per unit dose induced by radiation is
increased with attained age, while the risk of radiogenic cancer
relative to the spontaneous incidence remains comparatively
constant"). Both find that there is necessarily some uncertainty
and imprecision in their risk estimates. They agree that with the
completion (in a few decades) of the atomic-bomb study, a more
precise estimate of the survivors' lifetime risk will emerge, and
that future modifications of the risk will be made as more data
from all sources become available. They find children at higher
risk per dose-unit of radiation. Both indicate that x-rays (from
medical exposures or other sources of x-rays) may be twice as
potent a carcinogen as the comparable dose of gamma rays and that
therefore their risk values may need to be doubled when the effects
of x-rays are predicted. Neither finds scientific evidence to
support the hypothesis of hormesis.
One might ask why continuing evaluations of the effects of
low-level ionizing radiation are important. To take only one
example, a former chairman of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection indicated some 12 years ago that if the
permissible occupational exposure were to be reduced by a factor of
10 (i.e., from 5 to 0.5 rem per year), he doubted whether the
nuclear-power plants of the time would have been able to continue
operations. The implications of making regulations that meet
scientific and health standards become obvious.
We would like to examine the forecast of fatal cancer
derived from both these reports, when it is applied to industry
standards for protection from radiation in the past and the
present. With either analysis, it appears that even the current
permissible exposure of 5 rem of whole-body radiation per year for
nuclear-power workers is not actually a "safe" dose. What, then,
does a permissible dose of radiation really mean? Warren Sinclair,
president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements, recently said that the current permissible limits
"were likely to be reduced" because of the new BEIR report.
First, consider that in 1934 the International Commission
on Radiological Protection proposed a 52-roentgen (1 roentgen
equals about 0.88 rem, therefore 52 roentgens equal 46 rem) maximal
permissible yearly whole-body radiation exposure for workers -- a
standard the experts believed was safe. This standard was "used
world-wide until 1950." With the BEIR V data, one arrives at a
prediction of one extra death from cancer per 3588 person-rem
exposure to low-level ionizing radiation (after the application of
a dose-rate-effectiveness factor of 2 and adjustment of the risk
values for a population of workers 18 to 65 years of age).
Therefore, in a population of 3588 radiation workers who received
this maximal permissible dose in one year, 46 extra fatal cancers
might occur. The same per annum exposure for 16 years (1934 to
1950) could eventually result in the occurrence of 736 extra
cancers in the same population. With Gofman's estimate of a cancer
risk that is 3.83 times higher than the BEIR V estimate (with
correction for dose-rate-effectiveness factor), 2819 workers of an
original group of 3588 would have received doses of radiation
causing fatal cancer in the 16-year period, if they had been
exposed to the maximal amount permissible every year. The spread of
potential fatality rates is certainly impressive.
Second, today's worker in an environment where radiation is
present is allowed a maximum of 5 rem of whole-body exposure per
annum. If 3588 workers received this dose slowly in one year, the
BEIR V data would allow a prediction of 5 future excess deaths from
cancer, whereas the Gofman method would predict 19.
Gofman and the BEIR V committee have each produced a
fascinating document. They analyzed many of the same data but
arrived at different conclusions. Although BEIR V finds acute
exposure to low-level ionizing radiation to be about three times
more hazardous as a cause of excess deaths from cancer than was
estimated by the BEIR III committee a decade ago, Gofman condudes
that the new BEIR V calculations still underestimate the risk
substantially.
We strongly recommend both these excellent and timely books
for physicians, engineers, and public health officials concerned
with radiation, the environment, and public health. As humans
contemplate prolonged flight beyond the magnetosphere, in the
intense radiation environment of the nearby solar system, a whole
new generation of space-flight engineers, physicians, and safety
offficers must become deeply involved in this process.
G. THEODORE DAVIS, M.D.
ANDRE J. BRUWER, M.D.
1010 Las Lomas N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Scott Nudds
: Those
: > who question if the curve is slightly sub or superlinear are typically
: > whining for the purpose of increasing the amount of radiation the
: pubic is
: > exposed to.
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Conspiracy hypothesis.
I wasn't aware that conspiracy was required for cancer to be caused by
ionizing radiation.
Is this the lastest excuse by the nuclear apologists in their effort to
increase the exposure of the general public to ionizing radiation Mr.
Johanson?
entropy
Have you read Gofman's book? If so, were you not amused by the tortuous
reasoning that he was forced to take to explain why populations who
lived in areas of high background radiation did not exhibit an increase
in the incidence of cancar?
W Bradford Tittle
gentlemen studying to be Shift Supervisors included an recently emptied
dosimeter in their luggage. It flew in their luggage from Idaho Falls, ID
to Salt Lake City, Utah to Cinncinatti, OH to Pittsburgh, PA and then
returned by a similar route. When they returned they read the dosimeter (a
TLD). The TLD had received 250 mrem.
In the course of my training. Standing 15 feet in front of a 70 MW reactor,
I receive a total of 8 mrem. Almost all of which was incurred during
shutdown tours of the Reactor compartment. In a subsequent assignment at the
Expended Core Facility, I received an additional 125 mrem. I was in acting
in a support role (shift engineer) so wasn't exposed as much as the Water
Pit Workers.
In two flights, the dosimeter indicated that the two gentlemen had received
almost twice what I had received in 3 years of working in a nuclear
facility.
This raises a couple of questions.
1. Are Flight Crews required to wear dosimetry?
2. Is the public aware of its proximity to ionizing radiation when flying?
3. What is the rate of cancer among Flight Crews?
TNT
Brad
Scott Nudds
: Have you read Gofman's book? If so, were you not amused by the tortuous
: reasoning that he was forced to take to explain why populations who
: lived in areas of high background radiation did not exhibit an increase
: in the incidence of cancar?
Population mobility, social patterns producing exposure control, and
age variance are hardly tortuous explanations.
Lets consider the most recent human nuclear experiment.
Chernobyl Newborns at Risk From 1986 Reactor Blast - Sept 19, 2000
--------------------------------------------------
- Laureen Fagan - Reuters -
JERUSALEM - Babies born now in Chernobyl face as great a risk of
radiation-related illnesses as the children who lived there when a
nuclear reactor exploded in 1986, Israeli experts said on Tuesday.
Research conducted by Israel's Selikoff Center for Environmental Health
and Human Development showed that the longer children stayed in the
Chernobyl area in Ukraine, the more likely they were to become ill.
...
"Not only are children at risk, but every day they stay in the Chernobyl
area, that risk increases," said Jay Litvin, medical liaison for Chabad.
"We literally consider ourselves to be in a race against time."
...
The medical study found that infants and children in the Chernobyl area
were as much at risk now as youngsters were at the time of the disaster
because their rapidly developing cells were especially vulnerable to
radiation.
"Radiation is very insidious," Litvin said. "It can enter the body,
mutate cells and lie dormant, slowly doing its work."
The report studied 1,080 children brought to Israel since 1990.
Dr Yogesh Choudhri, chief epidemiologist for the study, found thyroid,
liver and other diseases more prevalent than in unexposed children. A
high incidence in breast cancer was also found in young women who were
exposed to the radiation as girls.
The Chernobyl disaster exposed more than three million children to
radiation. A U.N. report in April said the worst health effects were yet
to come and radiation levels would remain high until the middle of the
century.
entropy
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> entropy (entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> : Have you read Gofman's book? If so, were you not amused by the
tortuous
> : reasoning that he was forced to take to explain why populations who
> : lived in areas of high background radiation did not exhibit an
increase
>
> Population mobility, social patterns producing exposure control, and
> age variance are hardly tortuous explanations.
Is that what occurred in the extreme high background location in China?
entropy
How many cases of breast cancer were found in the young women who were
exposed to the radiation as girls? What does "high incidence" suggest?
Do you have a better reference than Reuters?
Scott Nudds
: 1. Are Flight Crews required to wear dosimetry?
: 2. Is the public aware of its proximity to ionizing radiation when flying?
: 3. What is the rate of cancer among Flight Crews?
1: no
2: no
Report: Pilots Risk High Radiation Exposure - Oct 12, 97
-------------------------------------------
- Reuters -
TOKYO - Pilots and crews on international flights are pelted with yearly
doses of radiation about three times higher than those received by
workers at nuclear plants, a Japanese daily reported on Sunday.
According to a six-year survey conducted by the Japanese Federation of
Flight Crew Unions, crews on international flights are being bombarded
with naturally occuring cosmic radiation, the Mainichi Shimbun reported.
International crews that flew between 700 to 800 hours a year were
exposed to an average of three millisieverts of radiation. The average
exposure for a technician at a Japanese nuclear plant is one
millisievert, the paper reported.
Japan's Science and Technology Agency sets a maximum yearly exposure
safety level for nuclear plant workers at 50 millisieverts, the paper
said.
The survey said that crews who flew on the New York to Tokyo route
received some of the highest exposures to cosmic radiation. Routes that
pass near the North Pole also receive high doses of cosmic radiation,
the paper said.
The Earth's atmosphere and magnetic fields filter out almost all cosmic
radiation, but at an altitude of 32,800 feet, levels of cosmic radiation
are about 100 to 200 times higher than at ground level, it said.
Scott Nudds
: > Lets consider the most recent human nuclear experiment.
: >
: > Chernobyl Newborns at Risk From 1986 Reactor Blast - Sept 19, 2000
: > --------------------------------------------------
: > - Laureen Fagan - Reuters -
entropy (entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: How many cases of breast cancer were found in the young women who were
: exposed to the radiation as girls? What does "high incidence" suggest?
: Do you have a better reference than Reuters?
Why don't you read the study? You have everything you need to identify
it.
Scott Nudds
: > age variance are hardly tortuous explanations.
entropy (entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: Is that what occurred in the extreme high background location in China?
Undoubtedly.
entropy
breast cancer? How many children got liver disease? What was the nature
of the liver disease? How was the diagnosis of liver disease made? What
were the other diseases that were claimed but not specified? How many
children died? What were the radiation levels? Were there any controls?
Was this material published other than in a press release?
Do you have a clue as to the extreme rarity of breast cancer in
children and adolescent girls.
Scott Nudds
: > identify it.
entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: I did read it.
Which we know is untrue because in the next paragraph you ask...
entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: Was this material published other than in a press release?
If you have to ask the question then you haven't read the study. Yet
you claim that you have read it and then claim...
entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: There was no quantitative data.
How do you explain your irrational conduct?
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> : > ionizing radiation. LNT provides a mechanism to estimate danger.
> : Those
> : > who question if the curve is slightly sub or superlinear are
typically
> : > whining for the purpose of increasing the amount of radiation the
> : pubic is
> : > exposed to.
>
> karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Conspiracy hypothesis.
>
> I wasn't aware that conspiracy was required for cancer to be caused
by
> ionizing radiation.
No, your conspiracy hypothesis is your unsubstantiated claim that those
who question the LNT hypothesis for radiation are doing so for the
purpose of exposing people to more radiation.
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> W Bradford Tittle (the...@tznet.com) wrote:
> : 1. Are Flight Crews required to wear dosimetry?
> : 2. Is the public aware of its proximity to ionizing radiation when
flying?
> : 3. What is the rate of cancer among Flight Crews?
>
> 1: no
> 2: no
I know lots of members of the public who are aware of this.
What's your answer for question 3?
Karl Johanson
Scott Nudds
: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > W Bradford Tittle (the...@tznet.com) wrote:
: > : 1. Are Flight Crews required to wear dosimetry?
: > : 2. Is the public aware of its proximity to ionizing radiation when
: flying?
: > : 3. What is the rate of cancer among Flight Crews?
: >
: > 1: no
: > 2: no
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: I know lots of members of the public who are aware of this.
I know lots of people who know what putskiplist does. In neither case
does the general public know.
: > Report: Pilots Risk High Radiation Exposure - Oct 12, 97
Johanson wrote:
: What's your answer for question 3?
At this point I don't have an answer. The information I provided in
part confirms, the author being responded to, and provides additional
numbers that in general confirm his personal observations.
I believe I do have an answer for #3 in my archive, but am unable to
find it.
Scott Nudds
: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > : > ionizing radiation. LNT provides a mechanism to estimate danger.
: > : Those
: > : > who question if the curve is slightly sub or superlinear are
: typically
: > : > whining for the purpose of increasing the amount of radiation the
: > : pubic is
: > : > exposed to.
: >
: > karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: > : Conspiracy hypothesis.
: >
: > I wasn't aware that conspiracy was required for cancer to be caused
: by
: > ionizing radiation.
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: No, your conspiracy hypothesis is your unsubstantiated claim that those
: who question the LNT hypothesis for radiation are doing so for the
: purpose of exposing people to more radiation.
That's not my claim. My claim is that those who argue that nuclear
power is not a concern because the Linerar Hypotheis greatly
<overstimates> the danger of low dose radiation, are doing so for the
express purpose of exposing people to more radiation.
No conspiracy is stated or implied. These are individuals acting as
individuals who are simply deluded and ideologically driven to ignore the
facts.
David Kendra
"Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:915p9i$53l$4...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
: W Bradford Tittle (the...@tznet.com) wrote:
: : 1. Are Flight Crews required to wear dosimetry?
: : 2. Is the public aware of its proximity to ionizing radiation when
flying?
: : 3. What is the rate of cancer among Flight Crews?
:
: 1: no
: 2: no
:
: Report: Pilots Risk High Radiation Exposure - Oct 12, 97
: -------------------------------------------
: - Reuters -
:
: TOKYO - Pilots and crews on international flights are pelted with yearly
: doses of radiation about three times higher than those received by
: workers at nuclear plants, a Japanese daily reported on Sunday.
Who cares if it does not increase the incidence in disease in the flight
crews or their offspring. When someone shows me the data that there is an
increase then I will worry. What about people who live a higher altitudes
in the mountain regions of the world. Do they have an increase in disease
over us lowlanders?
dk
:
: According to a six-year survey conducted by the Japanese Federation of
:
:
karljo...@my-deja.com
Changing your tune. . . What you said was, "Those who question if the
curve is slightly sub or superlinear are typically whining for the
purpose of increasing the amount of radiation the pubic is exposed to."
Karl Johanson
Germanating Thought
They want to educate the public on the real dangers. From some of the
stories I have seen and the stories from people in the business, it sounds
like low level radiation exposure, may be significantly less dangerous than
was initially thought. Even if this is not true, and "any" exposure to
radiation is dangerous, then people need to reevaluate their lives.
1. No more plane trips.
2. No more alpine skiing (in those western states where you take the lift to
> 4000 ft).
3. No more x-rays.
4. No more radiation therapy.
5. No more Electricity from Fossil Plants (they release radiation into the
atmosphere)
6. No more Air Conditioning (we just lost 40% of our power base)
7. No Nukes (another 20% down the drain)
8. No civilization.
Radiation is part of your life, just about wherever you live. If you want
to really reduce you exposure to radiation. Join the navy and get assigned
to a boomer. You can spend 3 months at a time pretty close to a Nuclear
reactor, and get less radiation than your peers on shore who live 800 miles
away from a reactor.
As has been pointed out in this group before, increasing the percentage of
plants that are Nukes will actually decrease the annual dose received by the
average person. People arguing against Nukes are arguing for increased
exposure to ionizing radiation.
Have Fun.
Scott Nudds
: : Report: Pilots Risk High Radiation Exposure - Oct 12, 97
: : -------------------------------------------
: : - Reuters -
: :
: : TOKYO - Pilots and crews on international flights are pelted with yearly
: : doses of radiation about three times higher than those received by
: : workers at nuclear plants, a Japanese daily reported on Sunday.
David Kendra (dke...@mr.net) wrote:
: Who cares if it does not increase the incidence in disease in the flight
: crews or their offspring.
Do you have any evidence that it does not? I left the question
unanswered.
Scott Nudds
: No one wants to increase the amount of radiation that the public receives.
Clearly those who wish to increase the level of acceptable radiation
exposure do.
Equally clearly, as the danger of low level radiation has more clear,
permissable ration exposure levels have been decreased.
Now isn't that special?
Scott Nudds
: > power is not a concern because the Linerar Hypotheis greatly
: > <overstimates> the danger of low dose radiation, are doing so for the
: > express purpose of exposing people to more radiation.
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Changing your tune. . . What you said was, "Those who question if the
: curve is slightly sub or superlinear are typically whining for the
: purpose of increasing the amount of radiation the pubic is exposed to."
Both statements are factually correct and express the same core idea but
illustrate slightly different fascets.
What aspect does Karl Johanson find himself incapable of understanding?
Scott Nudds
: From some of the
: stories I have seen and the stories from people in the business, it sounds
: like low level radiation exposure, may be significantly less dangerous than
: was initially thought.
Source: University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill
Date: Posted 2/7/2000
Scientists: Bomb Survivor Studies Outdated As Basis For Radiation
Protection
Standards
CHAPEL HILL -- Scientists who help set standards for radiation safety
rely too much on studies of A-bomb survivors, according to radiation
researchers who analyzed the relative strengths of data from two exposed
populations: A-bomb survivors and nuclear plant workers.
Results of the new study appear in a special section on "The Science and
Politics of Radiation Studies" in the current issue of New Solutions, a
scientific journal.
Researchers found "an increasingly outdated emphasis on evidence about
radiation health effects based on studies of A-bomb survivors."
In their article, Drs. Steven Wing, associate professor of epidemiology
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public
Health, and colleagues wrote that even occupational radiation
researchers use atomic bomb survivor studies as a standard for
interpreting nuclear worker findings.
The practice has developed despite studies over two decades suggesting
that reliance on the bomb survivor studies may produce serious
underestimates of cancer risks among exposed populations.
The new paper appears just after the start of the National Research
Council's reassessment of the consequences of exposure to low-level
radiation, a project that may take as long as three years to complete.
It is of special interest in light of the government's stunning
admission last week that workers at 14 nuclear weapons plants were
exposed to radiation that caused cancer and premature death.
The authors examined why the A-bomb survivor studies have dominated the
field and maintain that studies of nuclear workers should get more
attention. They noted the influence of military and industrial interests
in such research, the problems of access to data and the difficulty of
obtaining funding. Further, they say, "researchers investigating
radiation health effects among nuclear workers will have to overcome the
constraints imposed by this scientific culture upon hypothesis
generation, design, analysis and interpretation of occupational
studies."
...
In the same issue of the journal, Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso presents an
historical account of the occupational and environmental impacts of
uranium mining in the Navajo nation. The policies of federal and state
governments are examined during the intense uranium mining and milling
operations that took place in the Southwest, including on the Navajo
reservation, from 1947 to 1966.
...
David Kendra
:
: : : Report: Pilots Risk High Radiation Exposure - Oct 12, 97
Nope, that is why I asked it
dk
:
:
Germanating Thought
radiation, and the Regulatory Agencies respond to those fears. Tightening
regulations makes people feel safer.
People who work with radiation understand three things: Time, Distance,
Shielding. It is constantly drilled into everyone who interacts with
radiation. Minimize the Time you are in a Radiation Area (no Loitering).
Maximize the distance from the source. Maximize the shielding between you
and the source.
No one is saying that radiation isn't dangerous. Just that some low level
radiation isn't as harmful as the antagonist make it seem. The average
person needs to worry about exposure from his Dentist, his Radiologist, his
need for a Tan, the neighborhood Coal Plant, Air transportation, and the
basement than they do from a Nuclear Power plant.
Radiation existed before the Atomic age. The studies of the effects of low
level ionizing radiation are more important to people living at high
altitude and in granite rich areas than they are for people living near
reactors.
Driving your car is dangerous. Turning on the stove is dangerous. Watching
television is dangerous (especially when its election time).
> From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 14 Dec 2000 03:13:38 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
Germanating Thought
Even if radiation is more dangerous. Installing more Nuclear Facilities will
reduce the exposure received by the average person.
I love these "studies". Especially the reports on the studies. This report
does not say one way or the other the danger of radiation. It just says that
too much emphasis is placed on atomic bomb studies.
The problem that any of the researchers have is that low level radiation
exposure is difficult to study.
When I started in the Nuclear Business in 1992, the maximum allowable
exposure that a person was allowed was 5 Rem/ year, with a lifetime max of
(age - 18) * 5 Rem. This was changed in 93 or 94 to 1 Rem / year with a max
of age * 1 Rem. I have since been out of the business, but if what I have
read here is indicative of the current regulation, it has been further
restricted. The practitioners and regulators of the nuclear industry have
always been extremely conservative when it comes to exposure.
The people I worked with at the INEL said they used to handle materials as
hot as 5 Rem/hr. Now anything > 500 mrem/hr is handled remotely.
The statement in the article that the research with take "3 years" indicates
to me that he study is not likely to result in useful information. Atomic
survivors are the greatest source of nuclear related data that we have.
Thirty years from now, they will be able to do better studies on the
Chernobyl disaster.
The correlation studies with nuclear plants are really dicey. People argue
that TMI killed more than is claimed by the industry (0). They ignore the
fact that within 15 miles of TMI there are at least 2 Coal fired plants.
Have a nice day.
> From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 14 Dec 2000 10:39:16 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
Germanating Thought
this would indicate that ionizing radiation at low levels is not as
dangerous as the Nudds of the world would have you believe. The average
person has a 1 in 4 chance of getting cancer. If flight crew cancers
increased to 1 in 3 or worse you might be able to say that low level
Ionizing radiation increases the chance of cancer. I say might because you
have to include the other factors involved in flight crews lives. These
might include: Living in an enclosed system for 6 - 8 hours of every day;
eating foods in a variety of time zone; jet lag.
Correlative studies are really slippery. It is very easy for the bias of the
researcher to implant itself into the study.
> From: "David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net>
> Organization: Onvoy
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:09:28 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
>
Graham Cowan
Germanating Thought wrote:
Does your handle have something to do with Germans or were
you perhaps trying to write "germinating"?
Nudds is not worthy of your respect or attention. It is a troll.
You say "people are afraid of radiation, and the Regulatory Agencies
respond to those fears" . Actually it's interesting to look at it this way:
1. Regulatory agencies live mostly on tax money.
2. A significant part of tax money is hydrocarbon money.
3. Nuclear energy makes hydrocarbon money disappear.
At recent prices,
$1 uranium = ca. $183 petroleum = ca. $188 natural gas.
Not entirely disappear, but more than 99 percent.
Doesn't leave much to tax.
4. Nuclear energy reduces energy-related fatal accidents
by a similar percentage. But Regulatory Agencies couldn't
possibly be after continuing to harvest money that entails
avoidable fatalities, so it must be the public's fault.
They must be stupid.
I suspect, Mr. Thought, that uncritically repeating that slander
is something you'll want to do less of in the future.
---
At http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html see red hot boron
in air, an energy carrier more potent than gasoline, not burning.
Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room!
David Hatunen
>
>
>Germanating Thought wrote:
>
>Does your handle have something to do with Germans or were
>you perhaps trying to write "germinating"?
>
>Nudds is not worthy of your respect or attention. It is a troll.
Calling Nudds a troll is to give him too much credit. Trolling
requires the troller to know he is wrong. Nudds has been fighting
this battle for years now, utterly refusing to accept the fact that
there is no evidence to support his position; no one wastes that
much time unless they actually believe in what they say.
[...]
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
malcolm.scott
"Graham Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:3A38FE38...@eagle.ca...
>
> You say "people are afraid of radiation, and the Regulatory Agencies
> respond to those fears" . Actually it's interesting to look at it this
way:
>
> 1. Regulatory agencies live mostly on tax money.
> 2. A significant part of tax money is hydrocarbon money.
> 3. Nuclear energy makes hydrocarbon money disappear.
> At recent prices,
>
> $1 uranium = ca. $183 petroleum = ca. $188 natural gas.
>
> Not entirely disappear, but more than 99 percent.
> Doesn't leave much to tax.
Are you saying here that for every $1 tax collected from nuclear electricity
sold, $188 is collected from the same amount of natural gas electricity
sold?
Malcolm
Scott Nudds
: Nope, that is why I asked it
You will find the referenced Lancet article on line.
Cancer Risk For High Fliers - Dec 10, 1999
---------------------------
- Unknown -
Danish researchers have found a higher rate of myeloid leukaemia and
other cancers among some 3,700 pilots and crew members who had flown
more than 5,000 hours, according to a report in the prestigious
British medical journal - The Lancet.
The report from Copenhagenhowever that the link with cosmic radiation they
found was a weak one
and only applied to long-serving flight crews. "Although our research
identified an increased risk of myeloid leukaemia amongst Danish
pilots, it is important that the findings are not exaggerated," the
report said.
The scientists also discovered a higher risk of skin cancer among
flight crews which they attributed to more sun exposure than usual
during free time in warm countries. They called for further studies
and more research into other possible causes, including exposure to
jet fuel.
Myeloid leukaemia is a fatal form of cancer which usually strikes men
in their 30s and 40s. The average survival time is three or four years
after the initial diagnosis.
Scott Nudds
: Calling Nudds a troll is to give him too much credit. Trolling
: requires the troller to know he is wrong. Nudds has been fighting
: this battle for years now, utterly refusing to accept the fact that
: there is no evidence to support his position; no one wastes that
: much time unless they actually believe in what they say.
The referenced research in the Lancet supports my position Hatunen.
What a shame it doesn't support yours.
Graham Cowan
"malcolm.scott" wrote:
No. Most of the cost of nuclear electricity is other things.
But those other costs aren't taxed like hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbon tax money is ~easy~ money.
No holes to dig, no risk of losing fingers, just sit in nice offices
and let it roll in. And hydrocarbon taxes can be spun as green!
Is it a "conspiracy" when someone who gets such money
says nuclear energy must overcome substantial
difficulties with public acceptance before its contribution
can significantly increase? Ignoring apparently already
pronuclear public opinion results, such as those reported
by the Nuclear Energy Institute? Or is it just a comfortable
understanding?
Germanating Thought
information in this posting is; however, suspect. The casual reader gets
the impression that 3700 pilots got cancer. I know that no one in this
group is an average reader, so no one here would make that mistake.
I am glad that they pointed out that the skin cancers may have been due to
sun exposure, but the failure to include any other numbers is really
misleading.
> From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 14 Dec 2000 18:57:11 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
Scott Nudds
: If flight crews and their families don't suffer from increased cancers, then
: this would indicate that ionizing radiation at low levels is not as
: dangerous as the Nudds of the world would have you believe.
And yet there is an increase in cancer observed among flight crews. It's
not alarming, but it's measurable.
Those who claim that low levels of radiation are beneficial to one's
health, are talking out of their backsides.
Nothing new there.
Germanating Thought
Low levels of radiation may not be beneficial, but neither is it that
dangerous. By all means avoid exposure. It isn't that difficult. Time,
Distance, Shielding.
Avoid living in areas with lots of volcanic rock.
Avoid living in areas with temperature inversions.
Avoid living in areas at high altitude.
Live in a submarine. Get a 100 feet of water on all sides of you and you
should manage to avoid being irradiated.
Or you can relax, accept that radiation is a fact of life (non-occupational
that is), and enjoy your life, and continue throwing electron snowballs at
each other. The screen you are looking at is brought to you by (you guessed
it) radiation.
> From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 14 Dec 2000 20:33:20 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
m...@my-deja.com
> You will find the referenced Lancet article on line.
There are many such studies. For example, the abstracts for several
more studies can be read at:
http://www.airlinepilots.com/Aeromedicine.htm
... which was obtained after about 15 seconds of Googling.
What strikes me of all these studies is the inability to come to
a hard conclusions re: radiation exposure -- even when considering
studies of thousands of pilots.
Remember that the radiation levels at 10km or so are WAY higher
than at ground level [I've never worked up the nerve to take my
geiger counter onboard one yet; how to explain it to the security
people?]. If after 30+ years of experience we can find no firm
conclusion (let alone conclusions that are reproducible) ... well,
this suggests to me that the added risk due to radiation levels is
trivial, perhaps even non-existent.
karljo...@my-deja.com
You contradict yourself. You've claimed that questions to the LNT
theory are nonscence. Clearly thus, you think that the radiation
exposure to pilots would increase their cancer rates. Others wait to
see the data instead.
Karl Johanson
karljo...@my-deja.com
Germanating Thought <the...@tznet.com> wrote:
> If flight crews and their families don't suffer from increased
cancers, then
> this would indicate that ionizing radiation at low levels is not as
> dangerous as the Nudds of the world would have you believe. The
average
> person has a 1 in 4 chance of getting cancer. If flight crew cancers
> increased to 1 in 3 or worse you might be able to say that low level
> Ionizing radiation increases the chance of cancer.
One needs to adjust for age in the cancers. High quantities of arsenic
reduce a person's chances of dying of cancer to zero (by killing them
before they can die of cancer). Anything which extends a person's
lifespan increases the cances of them eventually dying of cancer. A
cure for all forms of heart disease would markedly increase the number
of people who get cancer, but not likely the age adjusted cancer rate.
Radiation could decrease age adjusted cancers, while increasing the
total cancer rate, by extending lifespans.
>I say might because you
> have to include the other factors involved in flight crews lives.
These
> might include: Living in an enclosed system for 6 - 8 hours of every
day;
> eating foods in a variety of time zone; jet lag.
Inportant points.
> Correlative studies are really slippery. It is very easy for the bias
of the
> researcher to implant itself into the study.
Karl Johanson
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> entropy (entro...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> : Have you read Gofman's book? If so, were you not amused by the
tortuous
> : reasoning that he was forced to take to explain why populations who
> : lived in areas of high background radiation did not exhibit an
increase
> : in the incidence of cancar?
>
> Population mobility, social patterns producing exposure control, and
> age variance are hardly tortuous explanations.
>
> Lets consider the most recent human nuclear experiment.
>
> Chernobyl Newborns at Risk From 1986 Reactor Blast - Sept 19, 2000
> --------------------------------------------------
> - Laureen Fagan - Reuters -
>
> JERUSALEM - Babies born now in Chernobyl face as great a risk of
> radiation-related illnesses as the children who lived there when a
> nuclear reactor exploded in 1986, Israeli experts said on Tuesday.
Hmmm. The radiation in the area has declined by more than a factor of
1,000 due to decay & even more because of dispersal. That's supposed to
make it more dangerous???
m...@my-deja.com
> And yet there is an increase in cancer observed among flight crews.
> It's not alarming, but it's measurable.
Just *barely*. And thats merely simple risk ratios. No one has
even come close to connecting the risk to radiation exposure;
for all we know, these people are getting nuked on the beaches their
planes fly to with frequency...
It's been 30+ years, Nudds. THIRTY YEARS, of thousands of people
getting kilo-zapped every working day of their lives. Yet all we can
confidently say about the matter is that "more studies are needed".
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
Scott Nudds said,
"Is there any evidence for LNT? The question is silly.
Evidence shows that the Linear model underestimates the effects of
chronic exposure to ionizing radiation. LNT provides a mechanism
to estimate danger. Those who question if the curve is slightly
sub or superlinear are typically whining for the purpose of
increasing the amount of radiation the pubic is exposed to."
In reply to my assertion that you think,
" that those who question the LNT hypothesis for radiation are
doing so for the purpose of exposing people to more radiation."
You replied,
"That's not my claim."
Clearly you have contradicted yourself. You came up with an
unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. You then denied that you said it.
You then came up with another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
"That's just natural paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that." Ford
Prefect from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Scott Nudds
: "Is there any evidence for LNT? The question is silly.
: Evidence shows that the Linear model underestimates the effects of
: chronic exposure to ionizing radiation. LNT provides a mechanism
: to estimate danger. Those who question if the curve is slightly
: sub or superlinear are typically whining for the purpose of
: increasing the amount of radiation the pubic is exposed to."
: In reply to my assertion that you think,
: " that those who question the LNT hypothesis for radiation are
: doing so for the purpose of exposing people to more radiation."
: You replied,
: "That's not my claim."
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Clearly you have contradicted yourself.
Clearly there is no conradiction. Do you know what the word "typically"
means Mr. Johanson?
Now if I had use the word "invariably" or "always" then I would have
contradicted myself. In short, there is no contradiction because the
question asked if I was claiming an absolute position, while I am clearly
not.
Johanson barks:
: You came up with an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Wrong again. This time you appear to be ignorant of the definition of
"conspiracy". If two people share the same opinion or world view, even if
they perpetually tell lies to support a corrupt shared ideology as Gossman
and Langrrr do, this does not make a conspiracy. Conspiracy requires
cooperation between the conspiring parties in the act to which they are
conspiring.
I have neither claimed or implied that there is cooperation between the
parties who claim that exposure to ionizing radiation is beneficial to
those exposed. Typically they simply share the same goal - increasing
public exposure to ionizing radiation.
Johanson wrote:
: "That's just natural paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that." Ford
: Prefect from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
No paranoia either. Simply a recognization of the truth. Those who act
to promote exposure to ionizing radiation are not doing it to lower the
public's exposure to ionizing radiation.
Is it your claim that this is their goal?
Scott Nudds
: > And yet there is an increase in cancer observed among flight crews.
: > It's not alarming, but it's measurable.
m...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Just *barely*. And thats merely simple risk ratios. No one has
: even come close to connecting the risk to radiation exposure;
: for all we know, these people are getting nuked on the beaches their
: planes fly to with frequency...
Flight crews? No, the results show a correlation with hours in the air,
corrected for exposure (altitude), not the time not spent in the air.
But you are correct. The increase in cancer is slight. But isn't that
to be expected for such a small exposure to radiation? Gee. I think it
is.
More significantly, as has been indicated here, there are a host of
studies in addition to the reference I provided, in which a positive
correlation is shown between exposure to low levels of radiation and
various kinds of cancer.
So what do the facts tell you about the individuals who publicly argue
that exposure to ionizing radiation is not only not associated with an
increase in cancer rate, but actually beneficial.
It indicates to me that fools will make any claim in order to support
their ideological world view.
I am not the first to recognize that fact.
Scott Nudds
: > --------------------------------------------------
: > - Laureen Fagan - Reuters -
: >
: > JERUSALEM - Babies born now in Chernobyl face as great a risk of
: > radiation-related illnesses as the children who lived there when a
: > nuclear reactor exploded in 1986, Israeli experts said on Tuesday.
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Hmmm. The radiation in the area has declined by more than a factor of
: 1,000 due to decay & even more because of dispersal. That's supposed to
: make it more dangerous???
Funny, I don't see any statement in the article that the radiation
associated with the region is "more dangerous".
Johanson has a long history of reading comprehension problems.
Scott Nudds
: You contradict yourself. You've claimed that questions to the LNT
: theory are nonscence.
I do nothing of the sort. You simply are unable to comprehend what is
written. Or you are knowingly misinterpreting what you do read.
What I said was that typically those who claim that the LNT is sublinear
generally do so for the purpose of increasing the public's exposure to
ionizing radiation.
Johanson barks:
: Clearly thus, you think that the radiation
: exposure to pilots would increase their cancer rates. Others wait to
: see the data instead.
Then I suggest you read the Lancet article for which I provided the
reference.
Is it your goal to whine about not having data rather than read the data
provided to you?
Silly puppy.
Scott Nudds
: It is apparently measurable. What is the increased risk to flight crews?
The numbers you seek are found in the Lancet article referenced.
GT writes:
: Low levels of radiation may not be beneficial, but neither is it that
: dangerous. By all means avoid exposure. It isn't that difficult. Time,
: Distance, Shielding.
Clearly. Yet there are those who claim that exposure to levels of
ionizing radiation that are higher than that experienced by the flight
crews studied is actually beneficial.
They are propagandizing through their backsides.
GT writes:
: Or you can relax, accept that radiation is a fact of life (non-occupational
: that is), and enjoy your life, and continue throwing electron snowballs at
: each other. The screen you are looking at is brought to you by (you guessed
: it) radiation.
As a technical person I don't fear radiation levels at or near
recommended permissable levels. This isn't the issue.
The issue here are the distortions being presented by nuclear zealots
who knowingly understate the risks associated with exposure to ionizing
radiation for the purpose of promoting their pet nuclear program.
The simple fact of the matter is that nuclear power represents at best a
means of supplying the world with a relatively small fraction of the
energy it will soon require.
Renewables and improved consumptive efficiency must in the end supply
the world with 80-90% of the energy required.
Even supplying the coming population with 10% of it's energy
requirements, some 20,000 new standard reactors would be required. That's
50 times the current number of rectors world wide.
One Chernobyl and 2 TMI's per year - even with this number of reactors -
is not my idea of a good plan if your intent is <not> to increase public
exposure to radiation.
Scott Nudds
: Even if radiation is more dangerous. Installing more Nuclear Facilities will
: reduce the exposure received by the average person.
In exactly the same way the murdering people will decrease the murder
rate I suppose.
Your conclusion is based on irrational, and unwarranted assumptions.
Germanating Thought
sources of radiation in community. The people in surrounding communities are
not being exposed to increased radiation. People are getting their
increased exposure from a variety of other sources.
> From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 16 Dec 2000 07:19:54 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
Germanating Thought
crews are not required to wear dosimetry. You cannot claim that the dosage
received is low. The one article you quoted for Crew Exposure levels was
separate from the Lancet article. Until flight crews are required to wear
dosimetry, the correlations are going to be pretty tenuous.
> From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 16 Dec 2000 06:56:53 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
karljo...@my-deja.com
If say 1/1,000th as much radiation supposedly does as much danage as an
initial amount of radiation, then it must be more dangerous per unit
than when the radioactive material was first released (this isn't so).
As radioactive material decays it doesn't become more dangerous per
unit of emission to add up to equal danger to when it had higher
emissions per second.
> Johanson has a long history of reading comprehension problems.
Quite so. I'm red green colour blind & some of the text/backgound
colour combos on web sites are hard for me to read.
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : You contradict yourself. You've claimed that questions to the LNT
> : theory are nonscence.
>
> I do nothing of the sort. You simply are unable to comprehend what
is
> written. Or you are knowingly misinterpreting what you do read.
Nice editing. Re-added text between asterixs.
**********************
> David Kendra (dke...@mr.net) wrote:
> : Who cares if it does not increase the incidence in disease in the
flight
> : crews or their offspring.
>
> Do you have any evidence that it does not? I left the question
> unanswered.
You contradict yourself. You've claimed that questions to the LNT
theory are nonscence. Clearly thus, you think that the radiation
exposure to pilots would increase their cancer rates. Others wait to
see the data instead.
*******************
Note that you claimed that you left the question unanswered. Your
support for LNT and claims that questions of LNT are nonscence clearly
shows that you think there is a corrilation. Thus you have in fact
answered the question. Thus you contradict yourself.
Scott Nudds
: > : > --------------------------------------------------
: > : > - Laureen Fagan - Reuters -
: > : >
: > : > JERUSALEM - Babies born now in Chernobyl face as great a risk of
: > : > radiation-related illnesses as the children who lived there when a
: > : > nuclear reactor exploded in 1986, Israeli experts said on Tuesday.
: >
: > karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: > : Hmmm. The radiation in the area has declined by more than a factor
: of
: > : 1,000 due to decay & even more because of dispersal. That's
: supposed to
: > : make it more dangerous???
: >
: > Funny, I don't see any statement in the article that the radiation
: > associated with the region is "more dangerous".
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: If say 1/1,000th as much radiation supposedly does as much danage as an
: initial amount of radiation, then it must be more dangerous per unit
: than when the radioactive material was first released (this isn't so).
Funy, I don't see any statement in the article that teh radiation
associated with the region is "more dangerous".
: > Johanson has a long history of reading comprehension problems.
Johanson wrote:
: Quite so. I'm red green colour blind & some of the text/backgound
: colour combos on web sites are hard for me to read.
Then I suggest you alter the color controls on your monitor. Or get a
black and white the one I am using.
Scott Nudds
: No it is based on confinement of sources.
GT needs to explain how higher levels of consumptive efficiency
and the utilization of renewable energy sources, passive solar
for example, magically causes the envirionment outsid of nuclear reactors
to become radioactive.
I look forwared to his response.
: > Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
: > Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
: > Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
: > Date: 16 Dec 2000 07:19:54 GMT
: > Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
: >
: > Germanating Thought (the...@tznet.com) wrote:
: > : Even if radiation is more dangerous. Installing more Nuclear Facilities will
: > : reduce the exposure received by the average person.
: >
: > In exactly the same way the murdering people will decrease the murder
: > rate I suppose.
: >
: > Your conclusion is based on irrational, and unwarranted assumptions.
: >
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: > David Kendra (dke...@mr.net) wrote:
: > : Who cares if it does not increase the incidence in disease in the
: > : flight crews or their offspring.
: >
: > Do you have any evidence that it does not? I left the question
: > unanswered.
: You contradict yourself. You've claimed that questions to the LNT
: theory are nonscence. Clearly thus, you think that the radiation
: exposure to pilots would increase their cancer rates. Others wait to
: see the data instead.
: *******************
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Note that you claimed that you left the question unanswered. Your
: support for LNT and claims that questions of LNT are nonscence clearly
: shows that you think there is a corrilation. Thus you have in fact
: answered the question. Thus you contradict yourself.
While I expect to see an increase in the diseases associated with
ionizing radiation with an increase in exposure, my expectations do not
answer the question of what increase (if any) was actually observed.
The fact that an increase was observed validates my stated expectations,
and invalidates the claim that exposure to low levels of ionizing
radiation do not increase the rate of disease and are beneficial to a
person's health.
They have lost the argument as they do every time they attempt to
dishonestly make it.
entropy
entropy <entro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <915qq1$53l$8...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
> af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> >
> >
> > : > Lets consider the most recent human nuclear experiment.
> > : >
> > : > Chernobyl Newborns at Risk From 1986 Reactor Blast - Sept 19,
2000
> > : > --------------------------------------------------
> > : > - Laureen Fagan - Reuters -
> >
> > : How many cases of breast cancer were found in the young women who
> were
> > : exposed to the radiation as girls? What does "high incidence"
> suggest?
> > : Do you have a better reference than Reuters?
> >
> > Why don't you read the study? You have everything you need to
> identify
> > it.
> >
> I did read it. There was no quantitative data. How many girls got
> breast cancer? How many children got liver disease? What was the
nature
> of the liver disease? How was the diagnosis of liver disease made?
What
> were the other diseases that were claimed but not specified? How many
> children died? What were the radiation levels? Were there any
controls?
> Was this material published other than in a press release?
> Do you have a clue as to the extreme rarity of breast cancer in
> children and adolescent girls.
Try again Nudds.
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> Germanating Thought (the...@tznet.com) wrote:
> : No it is based on confinement of sources.
>
> GT needs to explain how higher levels of consumptive efficiency
> and the utilization of renewable energy sources, passive solar
> for example, magically causes the envirionment outsid of nuclear
reactors
> to become radioactive.
>
> I look forwared to his response.
All forms of generating power relase radioactivity into the
environment. Some 'back of the enveloping' on wind power for example.
If we assume a capacity factor of 18% for the wind facility we would
need roughly 22,000 megawatts of windmills to average out to 4,000
megawatts. 35,000 600-kilowatt wind generators would about do the
trick. (If we assume 20% capacity factor we would still need around
31,500 of these windmills, or 25,200 for 25% capacity.)
The German 600 kilowatt Tacke wind turbines turbines (rotors included)
weigh approximately 95 tonnes (*Wind Power Note. No 16 Dec 1997). If we
assume that the materials in them are metals mined from ore with 10%
concentration (10% is an extremely generous assumption to be sure, but
one intended to balance off the non-metallic elements in the wind
turbine and blades) we can assume 950 tonnes of ore mined
(read “released into the environment”) per windmill. 950 tonnes times
35,000 windmills = 33,250,000 of ore mined. Noting that uranium
averages out to 4 parts per million in the Earth’s crust, we can assume
that mining that much material would release roughly 133 tonnes of
uranium into the environment. As well, there would be the daughter
elements of uranium (included in the list below). Thorium averages
about 12 parts per million in the Earth’s crust, so we can expect
around 400 tonnes of thorium released into the environment. Rubidium
averages at about 60 parts per million in the Earth’s crust, so we can
expect around 2,000 tonnes of rubidium released into the environment.
28% of this rubidium would be rubidium 87 giving us 560 tonnes of
radioactive rubidium released.
So using these assumptions (which are, of course, open to questioning
and possible revision or replacement in the case of different wind
turbine designs), we can expect the construction of a 4,000 megawatt
wind energy facility to release roughly:
-133 tonnes of uranium (plus associated daughter elements including
nearly 45 grams of radium)
-400 tonnes of thorium (plus associated daughter elements)
-560 tonnes of rubidium 87
(multiply these numbers by .9 for 20% capacity factor, or .72 for 25%
capacity factor)
Daughter isotopes of uranium and thorium include:
Rubidium 87
Potassium 40
Uranium 233
Radium 226, 228
Protactinium 231
Actinium 227
Astatine 215, 216, 218, 219
Bismuth 210, 211, 212, 214, 215
Francium 223
Lead 211, 212, 214
Polonium 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 218
Radon 219, 220, 222
Thalium 206, 207, 208, 210
(In terms of wind energy displacing nuclear, I haven't accounted her
for power plant life spans which are estimated to be very roughly twice
for modern nuclear plant as for a modern wind turbine. Recyclability of
plants and ecconomics of extending power plant life spans are too
complex to automatically assume the 2 to 1 ratio is exact enough to use
as a working number.)
Karl Johanson
karljo...@my-deja.com
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
Typo
> Daughter isotopes of uranium and thorium include:
> Rubidium 87
> Potassium 40
Potassium 40, while common and naturally occuring, is not a daughter
isotope of uranium or thorium.
Germanating Thought
I think PV and Wind are wonderful sources of energy. I don't think they can
meet the needs of out society. My argument is that Nuclear Power reduces the
number of Fossil plants necessary (which release large quantities of
radioisotopes). A nuclear power generation facility typically releases water
vapor to the environment. The scary reactivity is contained within the
reactor. It is controlled.
Environmentalism is a very important part of our economy. All decision
makers should listen to the environmentalists. At least they should listen
what has been filtered out by their staff. An environmentalist is a check
in our system. Many of the environmentalists worries are extreme and
unjustified, but they also point out things that are overlooked.
Unfortunately the Signal to Noise ratio for the environmental is really low.
White LEDs will soon allow huge energy savings. Although the inventor of the
White LED managed to develop the necessary technology on a very small
budget, he was able to do develop this because someone provided funding on
the speculation that he could succeed and that the proceeds coming from the
mass consumption of the creation would pay for itself.
Waste consumption allows environmentalism to exist. The question is, do we
want the environmentalist to understand this. If they understood that there
very existence depended on the organizations they abhorred, would they then
provide a better signal. Instead of focussing on topics that can incense the
public, they should identify practices that are more obscure, but cause
significantly more environmental damage.
> From: karljo...@my-deja.com
> Organization: Deja.com
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 02:59:31 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
R. Kym Horsell
> Sorry, but the reduction are do to the fact that people are afraid of
> radiation, and the Regulatory Agencies respond to those fears. Tightening
> regulations makes people feel safer.
...
Have you some irrefutable evidence that 100% of the change is political?
Since this is an extreme position it is extrodinary and will probably
require extra-ordinary proof. ;-)
R. Kym Horsell
> Even if radiation is more dangerous. Installing more Nuclear Facilities will
> reduce the exposure received by the average person.
Like more freeways mean less exposure to traffic, because it's
harder for the average person to get to a freeway?
Like it...
Germanating Thought
I think it is CYA. The effects of low dose radiation are still in wide
contention. The people who manage the Code of Federal Regulation, loving
their children, feel that less is better. Truly this is the philosophy of
everyone working in the Nuclear Industry. Radiation Worker (Health Physics)
training stresses Time, Distance, Shielding. You are responsible for
minimizing your exposure. You do this by minimizing the time you spend near
a radiation source; by maximizing the distance between you and that source;
by putting as much shielding (water, concrete, steel) between you and the
source. Before you go into a radiation area (high radiation) you plan you
task and prepare ahead so that when you are near the source you aren't there
for long.
> From: "R. Kym Horsell" <k...@alpha.kymhorsell.com>
> Organization: La Trobe University
> Reply-To: k...@kymhorsell.com
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 15 Dec 2000 04:53:50 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> : af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> : > And yet there is an increase in cancer observed among flight
crews.
> : > It's not alarming, but it's measurable.
>
> m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Just *barely*. And thats merely simple risk ratios. No one has
> : even come close to connecting the risk to radiation exposure;
> : for all we know, these people are getting nuked on the beaches their
> : planes fly to with frequency...
>
> Flight crews? No, the results show a correlation with hours in the
air,
> corrected for exposure (altitude), not the time not spent in the air.
The report doesn't include correction for altitude.
The report is very interesting, and I commend the authors for their
work. However, I would say the sample size, and the lack of accounting
for sufficient confounding factors (other than expected sunlight
exposure and jet versus non-jet pilots) and the small detected increase
in one type of cancer, would make conclusions from this study about
radiation dose to cancer rates tenuous.
I would note that some have suggested that B.L. Cohen's study of
radon / lung cancer correlations in 1,601 counties (which showed an
apparent hormetic effect for some doses) to be invalid for failing to
account for sufficient socio-economic confounding factors. Cohen's
study adjusted for 54 socio-economic factors. ("Test of the Linear-No
Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay
Products." Bernard L. Cohen)
> But you are correct. The increase in cancer is slight. But isn't
that
> to be expected for such a small exposure to radiation? Gee. I think
it
> is.
>
> More significantly, as has been indicated here, there are a host of
> studies in addition to the reference I provided, in which a positive
> correlation is shown between exposure to low levels of radiation and
> various kinds of cancer.
>
> So what do the facts tell you about the individuals who publicly
argue
> that exposure to ionizing radiation is not only not associated with an
> increase in cancer rate, but actually beneficial.
Your use of the term, "the facts" is always amusing.
The Study to which Scott Nudd's refers, ("Radiation-induced acute
myeloid leukaemia and other cancers in commercial jet cockpit crew: a
population-based cohort study" Maryanne Gundestrup, Hans H Storm) was
an interesting read. They show a very slight increase in myeloid
leukemia among those jet pilots with the highest exposures to cosmic
rays. 5 observered versus just under 2 expected. A pretty small bit of
data to conclude on, but lets, for a moment, assume this is a study of
sufficient size and accuracy for conclusions.
The study claims that those pilots in the highest exposure range are
declared by the study to receive up to 9 miliseverts (900 millirems, .9
rems) of radiation from cosmic ray exposure in flight per year.
Assuming 50 years of age and 25 years of flying we can do some rough
dose reconstruction. Over 25 years of flying that would expose a person
to (roughly) 225 milliseverts (22,500 millirems, 22.5 rems).
Additionally, these pilots are exposed to background radiation in their
day to day lives. The background exposure is over a longer time, as
they would be exposed throughout their childhood, and other "pre-pilot"
years). As the study deals with Danish pilots, I'll use an estimate of
average European back ground radiation of 2.6 milliseverts (260
millirems, .26 rems) per year. 50 years of exposure at this level would
give an accumulated dose of 130 milliseverts (13,000 millirems, 13
rems). If we assume 1 millisevert (100 millirems, .1 rems) per year of
medical radiation exposure, we have an additional 50 milliseverts
(5,000 millirems, 5 rems) of exposure over 50 years.
-Cosmic ray exposure due to flights, 225 milliseverts (22,500
millirems, 22.5 rems.
-Background radiation exposure 130 milliseverts (13,000 millirems, 13
rems).
-Medical radiation exposure, 50 milliseverts (5,000 millirems, 5 rems).
Total of these three estimates, 405 milliseverts, (4,050 millirems,
40.5 rems)
We can assume rem exposures of higher than that due to the high energy
neutron component of cosmic rays at the relevant altitude. REM
adjustments for cosmic neutrons are noted, but not adjusted for in this
study. "However, the impact of high-energy radiation from neutrons with
a relative biological effectiveness ten to 100 times that of y-
radiation is of concern."
So, the study shows just over 3 additional cancers in the group (>5,000
flight hours) which received possibly 40 rems lifetime dose, not
including the rem adjustment for cosmic neutrons. Claims of hormetic
effects of radiation tend to have around that level as the level below
which increased cancers are not detected.
The study also shows slightly lower than expected cancer rates in the
lower exposure groups (<1,000 flight hours and 1,000 - 4999 flight
hours) for multiple types of cancer.
If we assume the study to be of sufficient size to accurately measure
radiation exposure to cancer rates (I'm not conceding it does), we see
a very slight increase in one type of cancer for those receiving just
above doses claimed (by some) to have hormetic effects. We also see a
very slight decrease in multiple types of cancer in those with lower
levels (i.e. suggested possible hormetic levels) of radiation exposure.
My thought on the study is that there is insufficient information to
demonstrate the relationship between cancer and radiation exposure at
low rate, low level. However, the study seems to be very well presented
and it has useful information to be correlated with other studies
regarding the relationship between low level radiation and cancer.
> It indicates to me that fools will make any claim in order to
>support their ideological world view.
That's extremely funny coming from someone who posted references to a
study which (if accurate) demonstrates the opposite of the point you
were trying to make.
> I am not the first to recognize that fact.
Karl Johanson
Kym HORSELL
>I will reverse my opinion slightly. I actually don't think it is political.
>I think it is CYA.
[originally:]
>>> Sorry, but the reduction are do to the fact that people are afraid of
>>> radiation, and the Regulatory Agencies respond to those fears. Tightening
>>> regulations makes people feel safer.
If that's "slightly", I'll await "significant". ;-)
karljo...@my-deja.com
Nuclear facilties reduce our need for coal plants. Coal plants emit
more than nuclear plants.
Scott Nudds
Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
References: <qqKY5.2492$r42....@nntpserver.swip.net> <9117a4$nen$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <912vdk$ful$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <913pop$gn3$7...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <9140o6$d1o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <91485e$kuv$3...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <916p7n$l0d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <917f03$jmf$2...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <91892q$qd7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <B65D5236.871%the...@tznet.com> <91a80k$epd$4...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <B65E5455.112C%the...@tznet.com> <91f52q$qpk$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <B660F049.3229%the...@tznet.com> <91gvrn$dmu$7...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <91ha6h$u8c$1@nnr
p1.deja.com>
Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-HWFN]
: > GT needs to explain how higher levels of consumptive efficiency : >
and the utilization of renewable energy sources, passive solar : > for
example, magically causes the envirionment outsid of nuclear : reactors :
> to become radioactive. : > : > I look forwared to his response.
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
: All forms of generating power relase radioactivity into the
: environment. Some 'back of the enveloping' on wind power for example.
First, I note that Johanson decided not to answer the question. He
needs to explain how higher levels of consumptive efficency and the
utilization of renewable energy sources, passive solar for example,
magically cause the entironment outside of nuclear rectors to become
radioactive.
Johanson wrote:
: The German 600 kilowatt Tacke wind turbines turbines (rotors included)
: weigh approximately 95 tonnes (*Wind Power Note. No 16 Dec 1997). If we
: assume that the materials in them are metals mined from ore with 10%
: concentration (10% is an extremely generous assumption to be sure, but
: one intended to balance off the non-metallic elements in the wind
: turbine and blades) we can assume 950 tonnes of ore mined
: (read “released into the environment”) per windmill.
Johanson makes many silly assumptions. Here he assumes that the steel
will come from raw ore, he also assumes that the any radioactivity from
the ore exceeds that of the natural environment from which it is comes.
He also assumes that the radioactivity of the steel will be greater than
the radioactivity of the steel and cement that would otherwise be used to
construct his alternative - nuclear power plant. And he assumes that the
resulting waste products from plant will forever remain perfectly
protected from escaping into the environment.
Quite silly.
Johanson jabbers:
: Noting that uranium
: averages out to 4 parts per million in the Earth’s crust, we can assume
: that mining that much material would release roughly 133 tonnes of
: uranium into the environment.
133 tonnes of uranium may be dug up, but it is in no way "released into
the environment". In the process of extracting the iron, it will be
carried off in the primary waste product of steel production - slag, and
reburried. Further as the pits that at one time held iron ore are filled,
they will be filled with material that is slightly radioactive - as was
the ore. The turnover of one slightly radioactive material for another
hardly constitutes "releasing" radiation into the environment.
Johanson's purpose here is clearly to deceive the ignorant.
Johanson wrote:
: (In terms of wind energy displacing nuclear, I haven't accounted her
: for power plant life spans which are estimated to be very roughly twice
: for modern nuclear plant as for a modern wind turbine.
You haven't accounted for much.
However, on all counts, it is clear your intent is dishonest deception.
karljo...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> : > GT needs to explain how higher levels of consumptive efficiency :
>
> and the utilization of renewable energy sources, passive solar : > for
> example, magically causes the envirionment outsid of nuclear :
reactors :
> > to become radioactive. : > : > I look forwared to his response.
>
> karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : All forms of generating power relase radioactivity into the
> : environment. Some 'back of the enveloping' on wind power for
example.
>
> First, I note that Johanson decided not to answer the question. He
> needs to explain how higher levels of consumptive efficency and the
> utilization of renewable energy sources, passive solar for example,
> magically cause the entironment outside of nuclear rectors to become
> radioactive.
I showed a way one type of "renewable" energy releases radioactive
material into the environment.
For another example; consumptive efficiency can include the use of
gyprock insulation. This deliveres radioactive material right into
people's homes. I don't think at dangerous amounts myself. Some people
think that any level of radiation is dangerous though.
> Johanson wrote:
> : The German 600 kilowatt Tacke wind turbines turbines (rotors
included)
> : weigh approximately 95 tonnes (*Wind Power Note. No 16 Dec 1997).
If we
> : assume that the materials in them are metals mined from ore with 10%
> : concentration (10% is an extremely generous assumption to be sure,
but
> : one intended to balance off the non-metallic elements in the wind
> : turbine and blades) we can assume 950 tonnes of ore mined
> : (read “released into the environment”) per windmill.
>
> Johanson makes many silly assumptions. Here he assumes that the
steel
> will come from raw ore,
Okay. You can pretend aliens deliver steel from asteroids, or whatever.
Up to you.
>he also assumes that the any radioactivity from
> the ore exceeds that of the natural environment from which it is
comes.
I don't understand your sentence. Mining ore causes natural
radioactives locked up in the rock to be released into the environment.
> He also assumes that the radioactivity of the steel will be greater
than
> the radioactivity of the steel and cement that would otherwise be
used to
> construct his alternative - nuclear power plant.
I made no comparitive claims. Perhaps you read something else and it
confused you. You shouldn't assume what I assume. I listed a rough
calculation of amounts of radioactive material released into the
environment to make a certain number of a certain type of windmill. You
wondered how using "renewable" energy might increase radioactivity in
the environment. I just took an interest in your topic & back-of-the-
enveloped some rough calcs to show you how it could and does. Sorry the
answer wasn't what you wanted to hear.
>And he assumes that the
> resulting waste products from plant will forever remain perfectly
> protected from escaping into the environment.
Again, you seem to have me confused with someone else. I've made the
point that the lack of significant migration of plutonium at Oklo (in
spite of hot water moving over it for half a million years)
demonstrates that it isn't hard to preven significant migration of
plutonium through rock, even if uncontained and unvitrified (as is
planned). I've never claimed it's impossible for parts of spent nuclear
fuel to enter the environment.
> Quite silly.
It might be if I'd said it. Maybe you should figure out who you thought
said what you thought I said (assuming anyone actually said it).
> Johanson jabbers:
> : Noting that uranium
> : averages out to 4 parts per million in the Earth’s crust, we can
assume
> : that mining that much material would release roughly 133 tonnes of
> : uranium into the environment.
>
> 133 tonnes of uranium may be dug up, but it is in no way "released
into
> the environment". In the process of extracting the iron, it will be
> carried off in the primary waste product of steel production - slag,
and
> reburried.
Hey!!! Scott Nudds thinks burying radioactive material removes it from
the environment. Well. That is an interesting point there dude. Thanks.
m...@my-deja.com
> But you are correct. The increase in cancer is slight. But isn't
that
> to be expected for such a small exposure to radiation? Gee. I think
it
> is.
At sea level (ok, Toronto: +76m) my cheapie RadAlert geiger counter
clicks away 12-13 times a minute on average.
At +4000m, the reading is near 45 counts a minute -- about 3x as high.
While I have not personally confirmed it, I have seen data someone
else collected by placing a counter and a small computer in their
checked baggage on an airplane. The graph of the data showed a steep
climb, and then it settled down to something near 60 counts a minute --
5x as high as sea level.
Even if you can only accept a 2x increase in the background level,
where are the corresponding increases in the cancer rates?
> More significantly, as has been indicated here, there are a host of
> studies in addition to the reference I provided, in which a positive
> correlation is shown between exposure to low levels of radiation and
> various kinds of cancer.
We aren't talking about "low levels" of radiation here.
> So what do the facts tell you about the individuals who publicly
argue
> that exposure to ionizing radiation is not only not associated with an
> increase in cancer rate, but actually beneficial.
The facts tell me that the people who say it is not associated
with an elevated risk might be right. At least as far as ionizing
radiation goes. [Absorption of radioactive substances -- dust, water,
smoke, etc -- is another matter altogether.]
Is it beneficial? Who knows. Small amounts of many micro-nutrients
(e.g., vitamin A) are essential for health -- yet too much will
kill you. Could the same apply to ionizing radiation? I'll agree: very
unlikely, but we just don't know.
Scott Nudds
: > But you are correct. The increase in cancer is slight. But isn't
: that
: > to be expected for such a small exposure to radiation? Gee. I think
: it
: > is.
m...@my-deja.com wrote:
: At sea level (ok, Toronto: +76m) my cheapie RadAlert geiger counter
: clicks away 12-13 times a minute on average.
: At +4000m, the reading is near 45 counts a minute -- about 3x as high.
Exposure levels double every 1500 meters or so for flight altitudes and
can change by an order of magnitude depending on the level of solar
activity.
MDF wrote:
: While I have not personally confirmed it, I have seen data someone
: else collected by placing a counter and a small computer in their
: checked baggage on an airplane. The graph of the data showed a steep
: climb, and then it settled down to something near 60 counts a minute --
: 5x as high as sea level.
Don't know. Perhaps until you reach the radiation belts.
MDF wrote:
: Even if you can only accept a 2x increase in the background level,
: where are the corresponding increases in the cancer rates?
In the flight crews obviously. You obviously have not read the
reference provided. Is it your desire to avoid reading research that
provides the evidence you imply doesn't exist?
Silly boy.
Findings Altogether 3877 cockpit crew members could be traced for
follow-up, accruing 61095 person-years at risk in 3790 men and 661
in 87 women. The total number of cancers observed was 169 whereas
153.1 were expected (standardised incidence ratio 1.1 [95% CI
0.94-1.28]). Significantly increased risks of acute myeloid
leukaemia (5.1 [1.03-14.91]), skin cancer, excluding melanoma (3.0
[2.12-4.23]), and total cancer (1.2 [1.00-1.53]) were observed
among Danish male jet cockpit crew members flying more than 5000
h. Increased risk of malignant melanoma irrespective of aircraft
type was also found among those flying more than 5000 h.
Interpretation Both malignant melanoma and skin cancer were found in
excess in cockpit crew members with a long flying history, probably
attributable to sun exposure during leisure time at holiday
destinations.
: > More significantly, as has been indicated here, there are a host of
: > studies in addition to the reference I provided, in which a positive
: > correlation is shown between exposure to low levels of radiation and
: > various kinds of cancer.
MDF wrote:
: We aren't talking about "low levels" of radiation here.
Actually we are.
: > So what do the facts tell you about the individuals who publicly
: argue
: > that exposure to ionizing radiation is not only not associated with an
: > increase in cancer rate, but actually beneficial.
MDF wrote:
: The facts tell me that the people who say it is not associated
: with an elevated risk might be right. At least as far as ionizing
: radiation goes.
Indicating that you are not only interested in ignoring the research
that proves you wrong, but interested in continuing to imply a conclusion
that is opposite that provided by the research.
You silly little boy you...
Germanating Thought
There is a reason that they provide ranges for the statistical relevance.
There is a reason they called this a "Meta-Study".
There is need for much more study on this subject.
> From: af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
> Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Followup-To: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 18 Dec 2000 22:37:27 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
Scott Nudds
: You did read this didn't you Scott?
: There is a reason that they provide ranges for the statistical relevance.
Perhaps it's becuase there is a statistical variation in the measure of
statistical measure of any set of subsets of a set.
GT writes:
: There is a reason they called this a "Meta-Study".
Actually it's called a "cohort" study.
GT writes:
: There is need for much more study on this subject.
On serveral occasions you asked for numbers. You were provided with a
reference to those numbers, and yet you continued to ask for numbers.
Now that you have them, and they supporty a reality that you don't like,
you whine that the study was a summary analysis of a series of other
studies that also show an increase in cancer rates.
You silly boy you..
m...@my-deja.com
> : Even if you can only accept a 2x increase in the background level,
> : where are the corresponding increases in the cancer rates?
>
> In the flight crews obviously. You obviously have not read the
> reference provided. Is it your desire to avoid reading research that
> provides the evidence you imply doesn't exist?
Actually, Nudds, I did read it. Because I suspect you *didn't*,
let us review the stuff you posted:
> Findings Altogether 3877 cockpit crew members could be traced
for
> follow-up, accruing 61095 person-years at risk in 3790 men and
661
> in 87 women.
In short, this is a large sample. Even tiny effects should be
noticable and unambiguous.
> The total number of cancers observed was 169 whereas
> 153.1 were expected (standardised incidence ratio 1.1 [95% CI
> 0.94-1.28]).
So much for unambiguity. Even though the radiation levels are 5-10
times higher, we have an observed cancer rate 1.1 times higher.
But that is only half the story of course. Nudds, carefully note
the confidence interval. See how the value "1.00" is contained
within it?
Can you say "null result", Nudds?
> Significantly increased risks of acute myeloid
> leukaemia (5.1 [1.03-14.91]),
A huge variance; who knows what the right answer is. I direct your
penetrating gaze upon the CI though ...
> skin cancer, excluding melanoma (3.0
> [2.12-4.23]),
Given all the nulls here, I claim "fluke". But then, see below for
a better explanation.
> and total cancer (1.2 [1.00-1.53]) were observed
> among Danish male jet cockpit crew members flying more than 5000
> h. Increased risk of malignant melanoma irrespective of aircraft
> type was also found among those flying more than 5000 h.
Pfft. Another close null.
> Interpretation Both malignant melanoma and skin cancer were
found in
> excess in cockpit crew members with a long flying history,
probably
> attributable to sun exposure during leisure time at holiday
> destinations.
Good grief: a good explanation for the data, if one is needed!
Why, we don't even have to invoke cosmic ionizing radiation...
> : We aren't talking about "low levels" of radiation here.
>
> Actually we are.
A question of taste, Nudds. Shall we duel to find out who is right?
> : The facts tell me that the people who say it is not associated
> : with an elevated risk might be right. At least as far as ionizing
> : radiation goes.
>
> Indicating that you are not only interested in ignoring the research
> that proves you wrong, but interested in continuing to imply a
> conclusion that is opposite that provided by the research.
Nudds, you are projecting. Please answer the question I have
posed to you repeatedly:
Even *IF* we accept the above numbers at face value (and there
is no reason why we should -- and some why we should not),
but for the sake of argument, let's say we just do.
Please explain the serious deficit between the observed cancer
rates and the radiation exposure. O(10x) the radiation gives
rise to 1.1x the cancer: how? Why should we reject, out of
hand, the thesis that the radiation loads at flight altitudes
are NOT the cause?
charle...@my-deja.com
> So much for unambiguity. Even though the radiation levels are 5-10
> times higher, we have an observed cancer rate 1.1 times higher.
Radiation exposure levels are only 10 times higher during high solar
activity. Further, the exposure isn't continuous over the day, and not
not every day of the year. Half of flight time is at night when
radiation levels will be much lower, etc.
I for one would expect cancer rates to be only slightly higher since
effective continuous exposure is only slightly higher.
> But that is only half the story of course. Nudds, carefully note
> the confidence interval. See how the value "1.00" is contained
> within it?
>
> Can you say "null result", Nudds?
It certainly isn't a null result. It is simply not statistically
significant at the 95% confidence level given the sample size. Again,
it is expected that the increase in cancer rate is small, and that is
what is observed.
>
> > Significantly increased risks of acute myeloid
> > leukaemia (5.1 [1.03-14.91]),
>
> A huge variance; who knows what the right answer is. I direct your
> penetrating gaze upon the CI though ...
Yet an increase - Consistant with radiation exposure.
>
> > skin cancer, excluding melanoma (3.0
> > [2.12-4.23]),
>
> Given all the nulls here, I claim "fluke". But then, see below for
> a better explanation.
Again, an increase consistant with radiation exposure.
> > and total cancer (1.2 [1.00-1.53]) were observed
> > among Danish male jet cockpit crew members flying more than
5000
> > h. Increased risk of malignant melanoma irrespective of
aircraft
> > type was also found among those flying more than 5000 h.
>
> Pfft. Another close null.
>
> > Interpretation Both malignant melanoma and skin cancer were
> found in
> > excess in cockpit crew members with a long flying history,
> probably
> > attributable to sun exposure during leisure time at holiday
> > destinations.
>
> Good grief: a good explanation for the data, if one is needed!
> Why, we don't even have to invoke cosmic ionizing radiation...
I would expect this to be the case with skin cancer, as the skin of
the aircraft should provide protection from ions with the remaining
radiaiton coming from particle emissions originating in the air
surrounding the person being irradited and equally likey within their
tissues. Since this source does not place a bias on the surface
tissues, I wouldn't expect to see higher cancer rates from in flight
cancer as a result.
> Please explain the serious deficit between the observed cancer
> rates and the radiation exposure. O(10x) the radiation gives
> rise to 1.1x the cancer: how? Why should we reject, out of
> hand, the thesis that the radiation loads at flight altitudes
> are NOT the cause?
As explained above the ratio isn't 10/1.1 It would be so only if the
flight crew were living permanently at flight altitude and permanently
underneath the sun.
The measuremets show an increase in cancer rate, contrary to that
claimed by others.
karljo...@my-deja.com
The measurements show a very slightly more cancers than expected in the
highest exposure group. The same measurements show very slightly less
cancers than expected in the two lower dose groups.
The claim is not that radiation does not cause cancer, the claim is
that the LNT (Linear No Threshhold relationship between radiation
exposure and cancer probability) may be wrong at certain low doses and
dose rates (specifically, radiation may be harmless at certain doses or
dose rates, or it may have hormetic effects at certain doses or dose
rates). The study is too small to conclude anything I would say (it is
a good read and useful information coupled with other radiation
studys). However, if we are to use the study, we see very slight
increases of cancer at doses which seem to add up to around where some
are claiming is the upper level for hormetic effects from radiation.
We're also seeing very slight decreases of cancer amoung those who
recieved lower doses.
Karl Johanson
m...@my-deja.com
> > So much for unambiguity. Even though the radiation levels are 5-10
> > times higher, we have an observed cancer rate 1.1 times higher.
>
> Radiation exposure levels are only 10 times higher during high solar
> activity. Further, the exposure isn't continuous over the day, and
not
> not every day of the year. Half of flight time is at night when
> radiation levels will be much lower, etc.
>
> I for one would expect cancer rates to be only slightly higher since
> effective continuous exposure is only slightly higher.
A random search the 'net:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309054397/html/29.html#pagetop
This page notes the total exposure of a flight from New York
to Los Angeles (6 hours) at about 1.5mrem [hard to say].
At 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year, we get 375 mrem in total.
Sea level exposure is about 250mrem a year.
Hence, we have a factor of O(2x) to consider. [I think this is a
serious underestimate myself, but we won't know until someone
sneaks a counter on board...]
[[Just as an aside, you might consider reading more on that
page. The giggles just don't stop:
"though no epidemiological studies have shown conclusively
that ionizing radiation at low doses (< 10mrem)
causes cancer, it is nevertheless assumed that low
doses of radiation are carcinogenic"
yet a few words later we are told
"[...] for the well known linear no-threshold model assumes
that carcinogenic mechanisms operating at high dose levels
are also relevant at low dose levels. This assumption is
probably not valid [...]"
No shit, but we are to forget all this and just assume that a
physically invalid model, for which there is no supporting data,
is in fact valid and act accordingly. A classic case of double-think.]]
> > Can you say "null result", Nudds?
>
> It certainly isn't a null result. It is simply not statistically
> significant at the 95% confidence level given the sample size.
Which everyone else calls a "null result". If you start out in
ignorance,
and after the study you remain in ignorance, what ELSE can you say
about the situation? Well, at least if you are to remain honest
with yourself.
Note that even if we accept their number of "1.1x" as solid and
unquestioned, it is flatly inconsistent with an O(2x) exposure
computed above.
> > > Significantly increased risks of acute myeloid
> > > leukaemia (5.1 [1.03-14.91]),
> >
> > A huge variance; who knows what the right answer is. I direct your
> > penetrating gaze upon the CI though ...
>
> Yet an increase - Consistant with radiation exposure.
No, the number is completely unknown.
I find it odd, though, you argue for small effects, yet see nothing
strange with this (on its face) "huge effect". Even with an O(2x)
increase, how can this result in a 5x increase in leukaemia?
> > > skin cancer, excluding melanoma (3.0
> > > [2.12-4.23]),
> >
> > Given all the nulls here, I claim "fluke". But then, see below for
> > a better explanation.
>
> Again, an increase consistant with radiation exposure.
Again, you are changing your tune mid-stream: first we are to
expect small effects, now we are expected to see "big" ones.
Feel free to make up your mind anytime.
> > > and total cancer (1.2 [1.00-1.53]) were
observed
> > > among Danish male jet cockpit crew members flying more than
> 5000
> > > h. Increased risk of malignant melanoma irrespective of
> aircraft
> > > type was also found among those flying more than 5000 h.
> >
> > Pfft. Another close null.
What? No comment?? Probably because you don't like nulls ...
> > > Interpretation Both malignant melanoma and skin cancer were
> > found in
> > > excess in cockpit crew members with a long flying history,
> > probably
> > > attributable to sun exposure during leisure time at holiday
> > > destinations.
> >
> > Good grief: a good explanation for the data, if one is needed!
> > Why, we don't even have to invoke cosmic ionizing radiation...
>
> I would expect this to be the case with skin cancer, as the skin of
> the aircraft should provide protection from ions with the remaining
> radiaiton coming from particle emissions originating in the air
> surrounding the person being irradited and equally likey within their
> tissues. Since this source does not place a bias on the surface
> tissues, I wouldn't expect to see higher cancer rates from in flight
> cancer as a result.
I thought I was dealing with someone who knew what they were
talking about. "Protection from ions"? You really don't have a clue.
Well, here it is: any ionizing radiation that can punch through
the aluminum wall of an aircraft will fly though a human target more
or less as easily. It is, in fact, **just this sort of radiation
at issue** here!
Of course, now and then the human will take a hit [just as now and
then, the walls of the aircraft will]. We can expect this process to be
uniformly random over the body (as a volume), though perhaps with a bias
towards the head and upper body [geometry is a factor]. Given there is
no special prediliction of one organ over another to cancer [is there?],
and compensating for size and cross-section to the incoming radiation,
we can expect the rate of cancer increase to be a *general* one -- all
specific cancers will go up as the exposure goes up in step.
Is this what we observe in this study? It doesn't appear to be
the case; yet another reason to doubt ionizing radiation is the
cause, if the wide difference between exposure and incidence
isn't enough, or whether or not the actual numbers themselves
are correct.
> The measuremets show an increase in cancer rate, contrary to that
> claimed by others.
You've lost it completely. You begin by noting:
It is simply not statistically significant [...]
and end by saying it is now, in fact, significant.
Make up your mind, dude.
R. Kym Horsell
Well, as long as we ignore the eventual output of the rad residue,
and -- for the coal side-- pretend all the residue goes up the flu. ;-)
Germanating Thought
Statistics are very dangerous.
In this particular study, they show us the confidence levels of their
answers, but they fail to show us the confidence levels of their
predictions. They predict that there will be 153.1 cancers in the group.
Arriving at this number is by no means trivial. There were 3877 people in
the 5000+ hour/year group. They had to make a variety of assumptions. Every
time an assumption is made, and error is introduced.
If they reported that the expected value was 153.1 +- 10% and then said that
the number of cancers found were 169, people would really start to question
the findings.
TNT
> From: m...@my-deja.com
> Organization: Deja.com
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:56:13 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
Germanating Thought
facility that is not controlled as Rad waste.
I am not arguing that rad residue isn't dangerous. I would just rather that
radioactive waste be handled as such and not just dumped into uncontrolled
areas. I would also rather that toxic Coal Ash not be ignored. The rad
residue created by all the nuclear Plants in the US for their entire
lifespans added together is nothing compared to the amount of ash created by
1 500 MW Coal plant in 1 year.
> From: "R. Kym Horsell" <k...@alpha.kymhorsell.com>
> Organization: La Trobe University
> Reply-To: k...@kymhorsell.com
> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
> Date: 19 Dec 2000 10:39:23 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>
charle...@my-deja.com
> This page notes the total exposure of a flight from New York
> to Los Angeles (6 hours) at about 1.5mrem [hard to say].
> At 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year, we get 375 mrem in total.
>
> Sea level exposure is about 250mrem a year.
So now the stated exposure increase has been reduced from a factor of
10 times higher than background to a factor of 1.8 times background.
And then only after making the silly assumption that pilots fly the
same route continuously. In reality flights take place at different
times of day and of course at night a fact that dramatically lowers the
flight crews exposure.
In addition there mdf and others make the implicit assumption that
all cancers at sea level are a result of radiation exposure. If
perhaps 10% of cancers at sea level are a result of radiation exposure
then the 1.9 times over background increase flight crews <may> be
exposed to would translate to perhaps a 9% increase in the observed
cancer rate.
Clearly the statement that radiation exposures were 10 times higher
was wrong, and clearly the implication that this must translate into a
cancer rate that is 10 times higher is equally wrong.
mdf writes:
> "though no epidemiological studies have shown conclusively
> that ionizing radiation at low doses (< 10mrem)
> causes cancer, it is nevertheless assumed that low
> doses of radiation are carcinogenic"
This is probably correct. Radiation exposure of 10mrem is very small
and a very large sample would be needed to find any statistical change
with such a small exposure.
However, mdf has already stated that he isn't considering a 10mrem
exposure level, but a 400mrem exposure level, and epidemiologic studies
have consistantly found higher cancer rates at these exposure levels.
mdf writes:
> "[...] for the well known linear no-threshold model assumes
> that carcinogenic mechanisms operating at high dose levels
> are also relevant at low dose levels. This assumption is
> probably not valid [...]"
Evidence actually suggests a higher than expected cancer rate at low
levels of exposure, so the author is correct here as well.
mdf writes:
> No shit, but we are to forget all this and just assume that a
> physically invalid model, for which there is no supporting data,
> is in fact valid and act accordingly.
It is noted that mdf ignores the data presented here, and data found
elsewhere in print and on line.
> > It certainly isn't a null result. It is simply not statistically
> > significant at the 95% confidence level given the sample size.
mdf writes:
> Which everyone else calls a "null result". If you start out in
> ignorance,
> and after the study you remain in ignorance, what ELSE can you say
> about the situation?
It is simply foolish nonsense for MDF to try to argue that any
statistical significance below 95% is equivalent to a null result. In
fact, such a statement is strong evidence of great ignorance or
substantial dishonesty.
mdf writes:
> Note that even if we accept their number of "1.1x" as solid and
> unquestioned, it is flatly inconsistent with an O(2x) exposure
> computed above.
Clearly this is only the case if MDF assumes that cancer cases at the
surface of the earth are all the result of exposure to ionizing
radiation. Since we know that cancer results from a variety of
factors, MDF's assumption is foolishly incorrect. By inflating the
number of ground level cancers due to radiation, MDF raises <HIS>
expectations for the rate of cancer that results from slightly higher
levels of exposure.
Once it is recognized that radiation exposure at the surface of the
earth accounts for a minority of cancers, the observed increase in
cancer rate that results from increased exposure at altitude mesh quite
nicely.
mdf writes:
> No, the number is completely unknown.
In fact the very study provides multiple references to where the
number was measured.
Why is MDF misrepresenting the facts?
mdf writes:
> I find it odd, though, you argue for small effects, yet see nothing
> strange with this (on its face) "huge effect". Even with an O(2x)
> increase, how can this result in a 5x increase in leukaemia?
I don't claim that it does.
> Again, you are changing your tune mid-stream: first we are to
> expect small effects, now we are expected to see "big" ones.
The claim was made that there was no observed increase in cancer rate
in flight crews even though they are exposed to higher levels of
ionizing radiation.
The claim has now been proven to be false through direct measurement.
I really don't care what your expectations are.
> What? No comment?? Probably because you don't like nulls ...
Twice claiming that any statistical significance under 95% is
equivalent to no significance simply provides twice the opportunity to
expose your ignorance.
mdf writes:
> I thought I was dealing with someone who knew what they were
> talking about. "Protection from ions"? You really don't have a clue.
Ion's are what ionizing radiation is all about. Do you have another
theory?
mdf writes:
> Well, here it is: any ionizing radiation that can punch through
> the aluminum wall of an aircraft will fly though a human target more
> or less as easily. It is, in fact, **just this sort of radiation
> at issue** here!
Typicaly radiation exposure will result from ions created locally,
only a minute fraction of the ions observed will actually come from
outside the aircraft.
You don't have a clue do you MDF?
> Of course, now and then the human will take a hit [just as now and
> then, the walls of the aircraft will]. We can expect this process to
> be uniformly random over the body (as a volume),
And that is what was said. I guess you didn't comprehend the
statement.
mdf writes:
> Is this what we observe in this study? It doesn't appear to be
> the case; yet another reason to doubt ionizing radiation is the
> cause, if the wide difference between exposure and incidence
> isn't enough, or whether or not the actual numbers themselves
> are correct.
Incorrect. It is observed with some forms of cancer and not others.
In particular it is not observed with skin cancer since as you have
just confirmed the earlier statement that there would be little or no
surface bias since most ionizing radiation will arrise due to external
factors inside the body tissues rather than preferentially on or inside
the surface tissues.
> You've lost it completely. You begin by noting:
>
> It is simply not statistically significant [...]
> and end by saying it is now, in fact, significant.
It is indeed both. I'm sorry if you don't recognize how this can be
the case. I suggest a course in statistics.
charle...@my-deja.com
karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> highest exposure group. The same measurements show very slightly less
> cancers than expected in the two lower dose groups.
Indicating a slight overestimate in the proportion of cancers at the
surface of the earth that are a result of exposure to ionizing
radiation. Should the estimes of surface cancer be changed based on
these results? No. The change is not warranted statistically.
Johanson writes:
> The claim is not that radiation does not cause cancer, the claim is
> that the LNT (Linear No Threshhold relationship between radiation
> exposure and cancer probability) may be wrong at certain low doses and
> dose rates (specifically, radiation may be harmless at certain doses
or
> dose rates, or it may have hormetic effects at certain doses or dose
> rates).
Incorrect. The statment was that there was no evidence of increased
cancer in flight crews who are exposed to higher levels of ionizing
radiation.
That statement has now been found to be false. There <is> good
evidence of higher levels of cancer in flight crews. Althgough the
increase is slight, they are measured.
This tells us that even at levels of exposure increase that are as
small as that experienced by flight crews, the claim that ionizing
radiation is beneficial - I.E. lowering cancer rates, is in fact
contradicted.
> The study is too small to conclude anything I would say (it is
> a good read and useful information coupled with other radiation
> studys).
And is still vastly better than any of the studies radiation
proponents can dig up.
Johanson writes:
> However, if we are to use the study, we see very slight
> increases of cancer at doses which seem to add up to around where some
> are claiming is the upper level for hormetic effects from radiation.
> We're also seeing very slight decreases of cancer amoung those who
> recieved lower doses.
Which is contradicted by the very numbers Johanson was just provided.
karljo...@my-deja.com
charle...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> karljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > highest exposure group. The same measurements show very slightly
less
> > cancers than expected in the two lower dose groups.
>
> Indicating a slight overestimate in the proportion of cancers at the
> surface of the earth that are a result of exposure to ionizing
> radiation.
All cancers aren't from radiation, only a small percentage. Surely you
know this. The decrease in cancers in the low exposure groups (of
pilots) had slightly lower than expected cancers compared to the
general population, not compared to cancers from ground levels of
background radiation only.
>Should the estimes of surface cancer be changed based on
> these results? No. The change is not warranted statistically.
No no no. You estimate average cancer rates for a given population. You
examine whether an additional factor influences those rates. According
to the study, those in the study with more than 5,000 hours (jet)
flying time had 3 additional cases of leukemia (actually just over 3 as
the expected number was just under 2) compared to the general
population (not compared only to surface background radiation induced
cancer). Those in the two groups with lower flight times had lower
levels of cancer compared to expected levels in the general public.
I'll repeat a few bits from a previous post.
The report is very interesting, and I commend the authors for their
work. However, I would say the sample size, and the lack of accounting
for sufficient confounding factors (other than expected sunlight
exposure and jet versus non-jet pilots) and the small detected increase
in one type of cancer, would make conclusions from this study about
radiation dose to cancer rates tenuous.
I would note that some have suggested that B.L. Cohen's study of
radon / lung cancer correlations in 1,601 counties (which showed an
apparent hormetic effect for some doses) to be invalid for failing to
account for sufficient socio-economic confounding factors. Cohen's
study adjusted for 54 socio-economic factors. ("Test of the Linear-No
Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay
Products." Bernard L. Cohen)
The study claims that those pilots in the highest exposure range are
> Johanson writes:
> > The claim is not that radiation does not cause cancer, the claim is
> > that the LNT (Linear No Threshhold relationship between radiation
> > exposure and cancer probability) may be wrong at certain low doses
and
> > dose rates (specifically, radiation may be harmless at certain doses
> or
> > dose rates, or it may have hormetic effects at certain doses or dose
> > rates).
>
> Incorrect. The statment was that there was no evidence of increased
> cancer in flight crews who are exposed to higher levels of ionizing
> radiation.
Ah, more than one specific topic under discussion.
> That statement has now been found to be false. There <is> good
> evidence of higher levels of cancer in flight crews. Althgough the
> increase is slight, they are measured.
>
> This tells us that even at levels of exposure increase that are as
> small as that experienced by flight crews, the claim that ionizing
> radiation is beneficial - I.E. lowering cancer rates, is in fact
> contradicted.
To repeat again; the pilots in the group with the slightly increased
cancers received doses above those which tend to be suggested as having
a possible hormetic effect. Those below had slightly lower cancers.
Read all of the data.
> > The study is too small to conclude anything I would say (it is
> > a good read and useful information coupled with other radiation
> > studys).
>
> And is still vastly better than any of the studies radiation
> proponents can dig up.
I seriouslydoubt you've read even a significant number of studies which
suggests a possible hormetic effect of certain levels of radiation, let
alone all of them. How then is it that you can declare the pilot study
superior to studies you haven't read?
Radiation is demonstratably beneficial in some circumstance. For
example, we use it for medical treatments all the time. Certain doses
of UV are generally accepted as being quite good for you.
Cohen's radon study was far larger than the pilot & accounted for far
more socio-economic factors. The pilot study didn't even mention if
they adjusted for age. Pilots with longer flight hours tend to be
older. Age is associated with cancer. If they didn't adjust for age
then that alone could account for the very slight cancer increase.
Good reading (to name a few) includes:
Craig,L.; Seidman,H. Leukemia and lymphoma mortality in relation
to cosmic radiation. Blood 17 : 319, 1961.
Frigerio,N.A.; Stowe,R.S.; Carcinogenic and genetic hazard from
background radiation. IAEA Symposium, Biological and Environmental
Effects of Low Level Radiation, vol. 2, pp 285-289, Vienna, 1976.
Wei,L.X.; Zha,Y.R.; Tao ,Z.F.; He,W.H.; Chen,D.Q.; Yuan,Y.L.
Epidemiological investigation of radiological effects in high
background radiation areas of Yangjiang, China. Journal of
Radiation Research, 31, 1, pp 119-136, 1990.
Nambi,K.S.V.; Soman,S.D. Further observations on environmental
radiation and cancer in India. Health Physics, 59, 3, pp 339-344,
1990.
Hickey, R. J.; Bowers, E. J.; Spence, D. E.; Zemel, B. S.; Clelland,
A. B.; Clelland, R. C. Low Level Ionizing Radiation And Human Mortality
: Multi-Regional Epidemiological Studies. A Preliminary Report. Health
Phys. 40(5) :625-641; May, 1981
Chen,D.; Wei,L. Chromosome aberration, cancer mortality and hormetic
phenomena among inhabitants in areas of high background radiation in
China. Journal of Radiation Research, 32 Suppl. 2, pp 46-53, 1991.
"Health Effects of Low Level Radiation in Shipyard Workers,"
US Department of Energy Final Report, (1991)
Cook-Mozaffari, P., Darby, S., and Doll, R., "Cancer Near Potential
Sites of Nuclear Installations," The Lancet, November 11, 1989
"Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities" (Us Dept of
Health and Human Services. NIH Publication No. 90-874)
> Johanson writes:
> > However, if we are to use the study, we see very slight
> > increases of cancer at doses which seem to add up to around where
some
> > are claiming is the upper level for hormetic effects from radiation.
> > We're also seeing very slight decreases of cancer amoung those who
> > recieved lower doses.
>
> Which is contradicted by the very numbers Johanson was just
provided.
Not if you avoid data filtering & look at all of the numbers in the
study.
Karl Johanson
m...@my-deja.com
> m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > This page notes the total exposure of a flight from New York
> > to Los Angeles (6 hours) at about 1.5mrem [hard to say].
> > At 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year, we get 375 mrem in total.
> >
> > Sea level exposure is about 250mrem a year.
>
> So now the stated exposure increase has been reduced from a factor
of
> 10 times higher than background to a factor of 1.8 times background.
> And then only after making the silly assumption that pilots fly the
> same route continuously. In reality flights take place at different
> times of day and of course at night a fact that dramatically lowers
the
> flight crews exposure.
The assumption was "6 hours -> 1.5mrem". It is highly likely that the
"New York -> Los Angeles" case was used on the graph for illustrative
purposes. ["Hmmm", said the graph designer, "what flight lasts about
6 hours?"].
I'm willing to accept it as an long-term average exposure. If you
feel you can produce a better number, by all means do so.
> In addition there mdf and others make the implicit assumption that
> all cancers at sea level are a result of radiation exposure. If
> perhaps 10% of cancers at sea level are a result of radiation exposure
> then the 1.9 times over background increase flight crews <may> be
> exposed to would translate to perhaps a 9% increase in the observed
> cancer rate.
Unfortunately, there is no data that suggests that 10% of all cancers
at sea level are induced by ionizing radiation. There is, in fact,
evidence to suggest it is *exactly zero*:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/docs/JM95_NN/jm_nn5n1.html
perhaps even *negative* ["it's good for you!"]. There is similar
studies and data linked from:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/docs/JM95_NN/JM509.html
Even without this, attributing 10% of all cancers to radiation
flys in the face of what we *do* know about what causes cancer:
diet, lifestyle, and genetics dominate the risk factors virtually to the
exclusion of all other predictors. If background radiation *is* a
factor, then it's overall contribution to the cancer rate must be
significantly less than 10% (probably well under 1%, but no one knows).
Now, as your 10% figure is reduced, we have to increase the
dose experienced by the flight crews to maintain the statistically
insignificant value of "1.1". Example: if it is actually 1%, then the
radiation dose goes up to about 10 times higher than sea level -- a
figure you yourself claimed is "silly".
Oh no!
Even worse, in the alternvative, if we, as you suggest, have to reduce
the dose even further from 2 times, then we must *increase* the
radiation
induced cancers at sea level to values even more improbable than 10%
of all cancers.
There is, however, a very simple solution to all these problems;
alas, you are simply unwilling to accept it.
> mdf writes:
> > "though no epidemiological studies have shown conclusively
> > that ionizing radiation at low doses (< 10mrem)
> > causes cancer, it is nevertheless assumed that low
> > doses of radiation are carcinogenic"
>
> This is probably correct. Radiation exposure of 10mrem is very
small
> and a very large sample would be needed to find any statistical change
> with such a small exposure.
>
> However, mdf has already stated that he isn't considering a 10mrem
> exposure level, but a 400mrem exposure level, and epidemiologic
studies
> have consistantly found higher cancer rates at these exposure levels.
My apologies for not making that "aside" more clearly marked; I'll
try and be more obvious when I am digressing a bit from my thesis,
writing in BIG LETTERS that I am actually commenting on the PAGE I
REFERRED TO and not the exact matter at hand.
> mdf writes:
> > "[...] for the well known linear no-threshold model assumes
> > that carcinogenic mechanisms operating at high dose levels
> > are also relevant at low dose levels. This assumption is
> > probably not valid [...]"
>
> Evidence actually suggests a higher than expected cancer rate at low
> levels of exposure, so the author is correct here as well.
Good grief. You just read that "no epidemiological studies have
shown conclusively ..." and then state the *EXACT OPPOSITE*.
> mdf writes:
> > No shit, but we are to forget all this and just assume that a
> > physically invalid model, for which there is no supporting data,
> > is in fact valid and act accordingly.
>
> It is noted that mdf ignores the data presented here, and data found
> elsewhere in print and on line.
I ignore statistical insignificance, yes.
So sue me.
> > > It certainly isn't a null result. It is simply not
statistically
> > > significant at the 95% confidence level given the sample size.
>
> mdf writes:
> > Which everyone else calls a "null result". If you start out in
> > ignorance,
> > and after the study you remain in ignorance, what ELSE can you say
> > about the situation?
>
> It is simply foolish nonsense for MDF to try to argue that any
> statistical significance below 95% is equivalent to a null result.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
> In fact, such a statement is strong evidence of great ignorance or
> substantial dishonesty.
Strong evidence? In your own mind, I'm sure.
> mdf writes:
> > No, the number is completely unknown.
>
> In fact the very study provides multiple references to where the
> number was measured.
>
> Why is MDF misrepresenting the facts?
The facts are the variance is so large that the exact number could
be anything. Even 1.0 -- at the 95% confidence level.
> mdf writes:
> > I find it odd, though, you argue for small effects, yet see nothing
> > strange with this (on its face) "huge effect". Even with an O(2x)
> > increase, how can this result in a 5x increase in leukaemia?
>
> I don't claim that it does.
Then what *did* cause the increase? If it wasn't radiation, we
can simply dismiss this data-point completely for the purposes of
discussing radiation -- though this leads to questions of whether or
not that non-radiation mechanism also causes the other observed
increases too, eh? But if it *was* radiation, then how can a 2x (or
less, according to you) increase lead to a 5-fold (or whatever number
you would like it to be) increase?
> > Again, you are changing your tune mid-stream: first we are to
> > expect small effects, now we are expected to see "big" ones.
>
> The claim was made that there was no observed increase in cancer
rate
> in flight crews even though they are exposed to higher levels of
> ionizing radiation.
Your claim, clearly expositited, was, initially, to "expect small
effects".
> The claim has now been proven to be false through direct
measurement.
Proven in your own mind, maybe.
> I really don't care what your expectations are.
Probably because they are correct. While your expectations -- clearly
stated -- are at variance with observed reality.
> > What? No comment?? Probably because you don't like nulls ...
>
> Twice claiming that any statistical significance under 95% is
> equivalent to no significance simply provides twice the opportunity to
> expose your ignorance.
Yes, yes, it is well known that if you reduce your level of confidence,
you can accept just about any random crap that comes your way.
Most people consider "95%" a reasonable test of significance (99% is
used in some cases), and reject results as "unproven", "fluke",
"garbage",
or, if you want to be pedantic about it, "statistically
indistinguishable
from the null hypothesis" that don't meet it.
> mdf writes:
> > I thought I was dealing with someone who knew what they were
> > talking about. "Protection from ions"? You really don't have a
clue.
>
> Ion's are what ionizing radiation is all about. Do you have another
> theory?
Ionizing radiation are things like gamma and x-rays and truly high
energy particles (protons). The ultimate "ions" that are produced
by the radiation are *induced in the body*, not in the "air around
them" or any other location, as you seem to believe. Your claim that
the aircraft skin protects the people inside from "ions" reflects a
very deep ignorance.
> mdf writes:
> > Well, here it is: any ionizing radiation that can punch through
> > the aluminum wall of an aircraft will fly though a human target more
> > or less as easily. It is, in fact, **just this sort of radiation
> > at issue** here!
>
> Typicaly radiation exposure will result from ions created locally,
> only a minute fraction of the ions observed will actually come from
> outside the aircraft.
>
> You don't have a clue do you MDF?
To the depths of your ignorance, no sir, apparently I mis-judged you
on that score.
> > Of course, now and then the human will take a hit [just as now and
> > then, the walls of the aircraft will]. We can expect this process
to
> > be uniformly random over the body (as a volume),
>
> And that is what was said. I guess you didn't comprehend the
> statement.
Well, I can't comprehend what you didn't write...
> mdf writes:
> > Is this what we observe in this study? It doesn't appear to be
> > the case; yet another reason to doubt ionizing radiation is the
> > cause, if the wide difference between exposure and incidence
> > isn't enough, or whether or not the actual numbers themselves
> > are correct.
>
> Incorrect. It is observed with some forms of cancer and not others.
> In particular it is not observed with skin cancer since as you have
> just confirmed the earlier statement that there would be little or no
> surface bias since most ionizing radiation will arrise due to external
> factors inside the body tissues rather than preferentially on or
inside
> the surface tissues.
Absolutely no question: you simple do not comprehend the physics.
> > You've lost it completely. You begin by noting:
> >
> > It is simply not statistically significant [...]
> > and end by saying it is now, in fact, significant.
>
> It is indeed both. I'm sorry if you don't recognize how this can be
> the case. I suggest a course in statistics.
A fascinating case of cognitive dissonance you have, but I am afraid
that I am not trained to deal with it. Try a clinical psychologist.
p.s. So tell me, Scott, do you assume the persona of Charles Lando when
you are preparing to make completely idiotic comments like this? Or
is this some sort of Tyler Durden thing -- Lando only posts when Nudds
is asleep? Or is it the other way around?
m...@my-deja.com
> We should give the poor guy a break.
Wimp! ;-)
Is it commonly known that Nudds and Lando are one and the same?
The writing and posting style is almost an exact match; given
some inclination, I could probably make a simple "Scott Nudds"
detector to prove the matter one way or the other...
> Statistics are very dangerous.
When mis-understood and mis-used, very much so.
> In this particular study, they show us the confidence levels of their
> answers, but they fail to show us the confidence levels of their
> predictions.
We can only hope that these uncertainties went into the confidence
interval calculations; they probably did though (it's easy enough).
If they didn't, it actually makes things alot *less* certain than
already given. [That is, if statistical insignificance isn't enough.]
Other uncertainties are the assumptions of normality that underly
alot of statistics. If the distributions being estitmated aren't,
in fact, normal, "classical" statistics can really start to screw
you around.
karljo...@my-deja.com
m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Is it commonly known that Nudds and Lando are one and the same?
> The writing and posting style is almost an exact match; given
> some inclination, I could probably make a simple "Scott Nudds"
> detector to prove the matter one way or the other...
I should have known. What are the odds there'd be two people in the
world who're afraid of radioactive tumbleweeds?
Karl Johanson
Muckerheide
> I will reverse my opinion slightly. I actually don't think it is political.
Depends on what "political" means - the reason is that extreme regulation
generates $100s Billions in costs to be extracted from the gullible public,
that they defraud with radiation fear-mongering.
> I think it is CYA. The effects of low dose radiation are still in wide
> contention.
Not scientifically. LDR is shown to prevent/treat cancer by stimulating
immune response. It is essential for life. Hi background dose populations
refute the "less is better" philosophy, which is now at an environmental
level (10-25 mr/yr) that is less than 10% of background radiation (World
avg. 240, US avg. 360 mr/yr), and less than 0.001% of the variation in
background radiation (60 mr/yr to 7,000-10,000 mr/yr, with local areas to
70,000 mr/yr). See:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Zbigniew_Jaworowski_Iran_2000.htm
Obviously, this produces massive funding, for zero possible benefit, even if
radiation were hazardous at low doses. Of course if that were true the
millions of people at high background, and the millions of people that get
significant medical exposures, would be easy bodies to spot!
Also...
>The people who manage the Code of Federal Regulation, loving
> their children, feel that less is better. Truly this is the philosophy of
> everyone working in the Nuclear Industry. Radiation Worker (Health Physics)
> training stresses Time, Distance, Shielding. You are responsible for
> minimizing your exposure. You do this by minimizing the time you spend near
> a radiation source; by maximizing the distance between you and that source;
> by putting as much shielding (water, concrete, steel) between you and the
> source. Before you go into a radiation area (high radiation) you plan you
> task and prepare ahead so that when you are near the source you aren't there
> for long.
>
>> From: "R. Kym Horsell" <k...@alpha.kymhorsell.com>
>> Organization: La Trobe University
>> Reply-To: k...@kymhorsell.com
>> Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
>> Date: 15 Dec 2000 04:53:50 GMT
>> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>>
>> In talk.environment Germanating Thought <the...@tznet.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry, but the reduction are do to the fact that people are afraid of
>>> radiation, and the Regulatory Agencies respond to those fears. Tightening
>>> regulations makes people feel safer.
>> ...
>> Have you some irrefutable evidence that 100% of the change is political?
>> Since this is an extreme position it is extrodinary and will probably
>> require extra-ordinary proof. ;-)
Among other documentation, the guy who headed the major rad protection
science bodies from the 1930's on wrote in 1980 that there was never a
lowering of the dose for scientific reasons. (This is Lauriston Taylor, head
of the National Bureau of Standards, and exposed to relatively high doses in
his working life from the 20s-70s, and is still alive and living at home.)
There was one case in the 1950s when it was claimed that the mouse studies
at Oak Ridge showed a genetic effects "doubling dose" of 100,000 mr (acute
exposures) and occupation limits were reduced from 15,000 to 5,000 mr/yr.
We have since learned that the 1951 data was false (perhaps even falsified).
If corrected, the "doubling dose" should have been 500,000-600,000 mr,
essentially a lethal dose.
Note also that this was for genetic effects, not for cancer, etc. There's
NO such basis for low dose cancer or other effects from chronic (or
moderately acute) radiation doses (i.e., NOT atomic weapon/fission
gamma/neutron dose rates or extremely high rate x-rays). In fact, the data
shows that, in "immunologically whole" animals, and humans, low dose effects
stimulate immune systems, and other enzymatic, hormonal, and physiological
responses that lead to prevention and reduction of cancer, and other effects
- infections, inflammations, etc. Results from one research program doing
honest research, unlike primary DOE/US gov't funded studies, can be seen at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-Munich/shuzheng_liu_et_al_abstracts.htm
(in process for the summaries in the right column). Or see a recent (Sept
2000, Munich) summary of this work:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-Munich/Liu_Munich_2000.htm
There are many similar studies showing cancer being prevented and eliminated
by low dose radiation, including clinical trials on humans! But the whole
field is run by a small group of people that control all of the "reviews"
and a lot of the funding and publications. It's amazing what our "leaders"
can cover up for their own benefit. Of course the enviro charlatan leaders
knowingly promulgate the same stuff. (Most don't know the data, just like
most health physicists have never seen the data - but when they do, they
fall silent having to worry about their jobs also - and some begin to look
for other employment, but silently. You see, the response to the kid who
says "the emperor isn't wearing any clothes" is to cover your ears, and send
him, and his family, to Siberia.)
Muckerheide
Standards is corrected; plus a note (and sig):
> I will reverse my opinion slightly. I actually don't think it is political.
>
Your original position is correct.
Depends on what "political" means - the reason is that extreme regulation
generates $100s Billions in costs to be extracted from the gullible public,
that they defraud with radiation fear-mongering.
> I think it is CYA. The effects of low dose radiation are still in wide
> contention.
>
Not scientifically. LDR is shown to prevent/treat cancer by stimulating
immune response. It is essential for life. Hi background dose populations
refute the "less is better" philosophy, which is now at an environmental
level (10-25 mr/yr) that is less than 10% of background radiation (World
avg. 240, US avg. 360 mr/yr), and less than 0.001% of the variation in
background radiation (60 mr/yr to 7,000-10,000 mr/yr, with local areas to
70,000 mr/yr). See:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Zbigniew_Jaworowski_Iran_2000.htm
Obviously, this produces massive funding, for zero possible benefit, even if
radiation were hazardous at low doses. Of course if that were true the
millions of people at high background, and the millions of people that get
significant medical exposures, would be easy bodies to spot!
>>> [Note - Many extensive studies with 1000s, and 10s and 100s of thousands of
patients and radiology workers, have failed to do so.]
Also...
> The people who manage the Code of Federal Regulation, loving their children,
> feel that less is better. Truly this is the philosophy of everyone working in
> the Nuclear Industry. Radiation Worker (Health Physics) training stresses
> Time, Distance, Shielding. You are responsible for minimizing your exposure.
> You do this by minimizing the time you spend near a radiation source; by
> maximizing the distance between you and that source; by putting as much
> shielding (water, concrete, steel) between you and the source. Before you go
> into a radiation area (high radiation) you plan you task and prepare ahead so
> that when you are near the source you aren't there for long.
>
>> From: "R. Kym Horsell" <k...@alpha.kymhorsell.com> Organization: La Trobe
>> University Reply-To: k...@kymhorsell.com Newsgroups:
>> sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment Date: 15 Dec 2000 04:53:50 GMT
>> Subject: Re: The Nudds Appeal (or lack of such): On low-dose, say
>>
>> In talk.environment Germanating Thought <the...@tznet.com> wrote: Sorry, but
>> the reduction are do to the fact that people are afraid of radiation, and the
>> Regulatory Agencies respond to those fears. Tightening regulations makes
>> people feel safer. ... Have you some irrefutable evidence that 100% of the
>> change is political? Since this is an extreme position it is extrodinary and
>> will probably require extra-ordinary proof. ;-)
>>
Yes. Among other documentation, the guy who headed the major rad protection
science bodies from the 1930's on wrote in 1980 that there was never a
lowering of the dose for scientific reasons. (This is Lauriston Taylor, head
of the National Bureau of Standards, and exposed to relatively high doses in
his working life from the 20s-70s, and is still alive and living at home.)
>>> Taylor was head of the radiation standards division, not of the agency.<<<
>>>
There was one case in the 1950s when it was claimed that the mouse studies
at Oak Ridge showed a genetic effects "doubling dose" of 100,000 mr (acute
exposures) and occupation limits were reduced from 15,000 to 5,000 mr/yr.
We recently learned that the 1951 data was false (perhaps even falsified) by
not counting all "control group" mutant mice.
As corrected, the "doubling dose" should have been 500,000-600,000 mr,
essentially a lethal dose.
Regards, Jim
mucke...@mediaone.net
=======================
ingen
<mucke...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Results from one research program doing honest research, unlike primary
>DOE/US gov't funded studies, can be seen at:
>http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-Munich/shuzheng_liu_et_al_abstracts.htm
>
>(in process for the summaries in the right column). Or see a recent (Sept
>2000, Munich) summary of this work:
>http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-Munich/Liu_Munich_2000.htm
>
>There are many similar studies showing cancer being prevented and eliminated
>by low dose radiation, including clinical trials on humans!
Very interesting stuff!
There are also trials going on at a large scale in nature :
http://www.me.utexas.edu/¨ans/
<<There are certain regions of Brazil and India where there are
extensive deposits of thorium-bearing monazite sands. People have
lived in these regions for generations while receiving a natural
radiation dose as high as 2,000 mrem per year.>>
Evolution has made a design that survive in a natural level of
radiation.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/hormesis/
]]]]]]]]]]]]] RADIATION HORMESIS AFTER 85 YEARS [[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Background Radiation is Good for You (8/21/88)
--
ingen http://ingenes.hypermart.net/ingen/
Muckerheide
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:20:39 GMT, Muckerheide
> <mucke...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> Results from one research program doing honest research, unlike primary
>> DOE/US gov't funded studies, can be seen at:
>> http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-Munich/shuzheng_liu_et_al_abstracts.htm
>>
>> (in process for the summaries in the right column). Or see a recent (Sept
>> 2000, Munich) summary of this work:
>> http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-Munich/Liu_Munich_2000.htm
>>
>> There are many similar studies showing cancer being prevented and eliminated
>> by low dose radiation, including clinical trials on humans!
>
> Very interesting stuff!
> There are also trials going on at a large scale in nature :
> http://www.me.utexas.edu/災ns/
> <<There are certain regions of Brazil and India where there are
> extensive deposits of thorium-bearing monazite sands. People have
> lived in these regions for generations while receiving a natural
> radiation dose as high as 2,000 mrem per year.>>
Much higher - up to 70 rad (70,000 mrad) per year. See a paper by Dr.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, retired head of the Central Laboratory for Radiation
Protection in Poland, and a member, and former Chairman, of UNSCEAR:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Zbigniew_Jaworowski_Iran_2000.htm
see the heading "Radiation Doses" (and see Fig 2 at the bottom)
Note: 700 mGy = 70 rad, and lifetime doses would be ~50 Gy (5,000 rad)
These data come from the recent UNSCEAR Report. (They couldn't very well
suppress simple measurement data as they do with health effects data.)
Note that this paper was at a recent Conference in Iran that included a
"side trip" to Ramsar, where participants saw these enormous exposures.
Click on [Documents] on the navigation bar to see other substantial papers.
> Evolution has made a design that survive in a natural level of
> radiation.
> http://www.angelfire.com/mo/hormesis/
And note that Javad Mortazavi, who organized this site, is in Iran, and
organized this Conference (which was not specifically oriented to hormesis.
> ]]]]]]]]]]]]] RADIATION HORMESIS AFTER 85 YEARS [[[[[[[[[[[[[[
> Background Radiation is Good for You (8/21/88)
Also:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Brucer87HPSNL.html
> --
> ingen http://ingenes.hypermart.net/ingen/
>
Regards, Jim
ingen
<mucke...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Note: 700 mGy = 70 rad, and lifetime doses would be ~50 Gy (5,000 rad)
>
In my area the lifetime dose is about 350 mSv. Can you convert Gy into
mSv?
>These data come from the recent UNSCEAR Report. (They couldn't very well
>suppress simple measurement data as they do with health effects data.)
>
>Note that this paper was at a recent Conference in Iran that included a
>"side trip" to Ramsar, where participants saw these enormous exposures.
>
>Click on [Documents] on the navigation bar to see other substantial papers.
Yes, I did and I found this :
-- begin quote --
Preface for the English edition of Bruno Comby's book :
"ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY"
(in print - October 2000)
by James LOVELOCK
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Docs/NuclearTech/LovelockPref2Comby.htm
I hope that it is not too late for the world to emulate France and
make nuclear power our principal source of energy. There is at present
no other safe, practical and economic substitute for the dangerous
practice of burning carbon fuels.
James LOVELOCK.
-- end quote --
Lovelock is a clever and strange scientist that has his own company in
the countryside of England. He is so clever that he he has become very
rich. He has created his own religion, Gaia. I do no like his
religion, but I do like what he write about nuclear energy.
Then I am an environmentalists too, as I think that nuclear energy is
good for mother earth and its people.
--
ingen http://ingenes.hypermart.net/ingen/
entropy
Muckerheide <mucke...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 12:37:37 GMT, ingen <in...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 08:20:39 GMT, Muckerheide
> > <mucke...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Results from one research program doing honest research, unlike
primary
> >> DOE/US gov't funded studies, can be seen at:
> >> http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-
Munich/shuzheng_liu_et_al_abstracts.htm
> >>
> >> (in process for the summaries in the right column). Or see a
recent (Sept
> >> 2000, Munich) summary of this work:
> >> http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Liu-Munich/Liu_Munich_2000.htm
> >>
> >> There are many similar studies showing cancer being prevented and
eliminated
> >> by low dose radiation, including clinical trials on humans!
> >
> > Very interesting stuff!
> > There are also trials going on at a large scale in nature :
Nuclear Power by Dr. Robert C. Morris? Any comments? A discussion of
this book has started at http://www.egroups.com/group/RunningOnEmpty .
Consider joining in if interested.
Muckerheide
>
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 09:19:41 GMT, Muckerheide
> <mucke...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> Note: 700 mGy = 70 rad, and lifetime doses would be ~50 Gy (5,000 rad)
>>
> In my area the lifetime dose is about 350 mSv. Can you convert Gy into
> mSv?
Gy is to Sv as Rad is to Rem. 1 mSv = 1 mGy in tissue
>> These data come from the recent UNSCEAR Report. (They couldn't very well
>> suppress simple measurement data as they do with health effects data.)
>>
>> Note that this paper was at a recent Conference in Iran that included a
>> "side trip" to Ramsar, where participants saw these enormous exposures.
>>
>> Click on [Documents] on the navigation bar to see other substantial papers.
>
> Yes, I did and I found this :
> -- begin quote --
> Preface for the English edition of Bruno Comby's book :
> "ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY"
> (in print - October 2000)
> by James LOVELOCK
> http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Docs/NuclearTech/LovelockPref2Comby.htm
> I hope that it is not too late for the world to emulate France and
> make nuclear power our principal source of energy. There is at present
> no other safe, practical and economic substitute for the dangerous
> practice of burning carbon fuels.
>
> James LOVELOCK.
> -- end quote --
> Lovelock is a clever and strange scientist that has his own company in
> the countryside of England. He is so clever that he he has become very
> rich. He has created his own religion, Gaia. I do no like his
> religion, but I do like what he write about nuclear energy.
I had some of the same impressions, but he did NOT create Gaia as a
religion, nor claim that the earth is a living being. That was done by
environmentalists, etc. He did say that earth's systems interact and
function in ways that parallel a living organism, and presented many
examples of such interactions. He became rich because he invented
fundamental scientific instruments that sold well, plus consulting to bring
his global perspectives to some very large issues with pragmatic
contributions.
> Then I am an environmentalists too, as I think that nuclear energy is
> good for mother earth and its people.
Amen (religion? :-) Nuclear power may be the ultimate environmental
solution for a prosperous and healthy planet of 10 billion people!
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> --
> ingen http://ingenes.hypermart.net/ingen/