[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Archive Top]

[cdn-nucl-l] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia

To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" <cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia
From: "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:54:12 -0400
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=wv77hFS/u8uAfNxFfD8rg5AUWdSEQJZ7xuaIghkp4kEqhd8e9XaQk7yNK90TtWZejhZQz/InTSZqU8TK/gqQv+Q4oZ+HZ6AJhQTy+we+S4N+160jjJPWTFzQohNFRsvAZeW+6s1cYypoenGm/v1EbNtcSOdsm9s98GdRkyVUbUM= ;
List-archive: <http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/>
List-help: <mailto:cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA?subject=help>
List-id: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List <cdn-nucl-l.mailman.McMaster.CA>
List-post: <mailto:cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l>,<mailto:cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l>,<mailto:cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA?subject=unsubscribe>

Very interesting item ....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm@WPI.EDU>
To: <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>; <farbersa@optonline.net>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: FW: RE: [ RadSafe ] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia


> Friends,  FYI.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: farbersa@optonline.net [mailto:farbersa@optonline.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 4:24 PM
> To: Muckerheide, James
> Cc: James Salsman; radsafe@radlab.nl; rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
> Subject: Re: RE: [ RadSafe ] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia
>
> Hi all,
>
> As has been well established from numerous studies of thyroid cancer risk,
> the thyroid cancer risk/rad from direct radiation [external beam x-ray or
> gamma vs. internal I-131 exposure] is about 3 to 1. That is 3 rads
internal
> has the thyroid cancer potential of about 1 rad external x-ray/gamma
> exposure.
>
> The CDC has shown in its [in]actions on dealing with the health risks of
> Nasal Radium Irradiation [NRI]  to shrink hypertrophied adenoids that
dealing
> with radiation risks is completely "situational". NRI would irradiate the
> thyroid with direct gamma radiation based on the distance of the thyroid
from
> the opening of Eustachian tube. Epidemiological studies conducted as Ph.D.
> theses [Sandler, 1978] and [Yeh, 1997] carried out at Johns Hopkins School
of
> Public Health with the results selectively published in peer-reviewed
> journals have shown that treated children have a highly significant risk
of
> thyrotoxicosis[Graves Disease -RR= 8.6], thyroid cancer [RR= 5.3],
adjusted
> benign and malignant brain tumors [RR=30.9], head and neck cancer [RR=3],
and
> cancer of soft palete [RR=13] vs. untreated controls were reviewed by the
> CDC.
>
> The CDC was forced to review NRI after a hearing was organized by Sen.
> Lieberman in 1994 at which I testified as a member of the public/scientist
> who had brought the issue to Sen. Lieberman related to NRI's experimental
use
> on WW.II. era submariners noted in a letter I coauthored with Dr. Alan
> Ducatman of MIT in a  letter-to-the-editor of the New England Journal of
> Medicine ['Radium Exposure in U.S. Military Personnel"] in 1992,. The CDC
in
> 1995 determined and published in 1996 that no fewer than 560,000 American
> children as a lo-lo estimate [and a hi-hi estimate of 2.6 million]
received
> NRI treatments from 1946 to 1961. The thyroid gamma radiation dose from
the
> nasal radium irradiator placed  bilaterally at the rear of the patient's
> nasopharynx [a 50 mg radium source encased in 0.3 mm Monel, 10 to 12
minutes
> per treatment, for average of 3 treatments per standard course of
treatment]
> delivered far more radiation dose to the thyroid from direct radiation on
a
> rad basis, than
>  the Hanford downwinders received on average on a rad basis from internal
> exposure.
>
> YET, when the Massachusett's Department of Public Health in 1997 was
> considering a health warning to be issued to all the physicians in the
> Commonwealth of Mass. following several briefings I provided to the
Advisory
> Committee on Radiation Risks to the Massachusetts' Governor, the CDC
fought
> tooth and nail that the Mass. DPH should not issue an advisory that people
> treated as children with NRI represented a "special population at risk"
> because "there is no significant neoplastic or other disease risk from
nasal
> radium irradiation." Obviously, this statement by the CDC is
> agenda/politicised science at its worst and shows that the CDC is willing
to
> ignore substantial radiation risks to the US population while
> overexaggerating risks from nuclear power/defense related radiation
issues.
>
> Thankfully, the MA Dept. of Public Health had the good sense to ignore the
> CDC's strong entreaties not to issue a Public Health Advisory on NRI to
all
> 27,000 physicians in the Commonwealth.
>
> If anyone wishes full citations on the above matters, please contact me.
>
> Stewart Farber, MSPH
> farbersa@optonline.net
> Consulting Scientist
> 1285 Wood Ave.
> Bridgeport, CT 06604
> [203] 367-0791
>
> =================
> .
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm@WPI.EDU>
> Date: Friday, August 26, 2005 3:23 pm
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia
>
> > First, there are no significant exposures to the population, even
> > thoughthere could have been individual instances of significant
> > exposures.
> > As Ralph Lapp said in the early '90s: "Any credible scientist that
> > explainedthat no effects could be found were excluded from
> > participating in the
> > study."  And science knows that millions of people received much
> > higherthyroid doses from medical diagnostics (especially before
> > 1970 and the
> > introduction of radioimmunoassay by Roz Yalow, for which she
> > received the
> > Nobel Prize), and the even higher doses for hyperthyroid
> > treatment, with no
> > thyroid cancer effects.  (For the hyperthyroid patients there was
> > no leukemia
> > or other cancers from the 10-15 rad whole body dose associated
> > with the I-131
> > treatment.)
> >
> > ATSDR is so inept that was claiming that toxic chemicals have
> > adverse effects
> > right down to zero, except they 'arbitrarily' allowed that there
> > could be no
> > effects below the level of the Minimum Daily Requirement for these
> > vitaminsand minerals.
> >
> > There is no credible science, nor scientists, involved.
> >
> > Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> > ========================
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: radsafe-bounces@radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-
> > bounces@radlab.nl] On
> > > Behalf Of James Salsman
> > > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:19 PM
> > > To: radsafe@radlab.nl
> > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia
> > >
> > > Jim Muckerheide wrote:
> > >
> > > > Our responsible industry and government authorities need to
> > develop and
> > > > establish the institutional basis to question these results....
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, no credible "science" or scientists influence these
> > results!>
> > > I'm guessing Jim hasn't seen the videos:
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hanford/health_care/video_presentations.html>
> > > If he has, I wonder what his definition of "credible" is.
> > >
>
> >
>
>

Prev by Date: [cdn-nucl-l] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia
Next by Date: [cdn-nucl-l] More Fed agency promulgation of radiophobia
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread
Reply to: cdn-nucl-l@mailman.mcmaster.ca
cdn-nucl-l Mailman info page