Please share far and wide!

Thursday, August 20, 2015

NRC is Proposing to Increase the Radiation We Shall be Hit With by 10 to 100 Time Current Limits, Hormesis

After you read this mess, you are going to want to submit a response to the NRC, which you can do simply right here. Annoymous is OK too, but I see no reason for it.

 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057

Here are the 3 people who submitted letters to NRC all around the same time frame.    Are these people or monsters>?




And here is the "3rd piece of work", he didn't copy the other 2, the other 2 copied each other.
 


He posted a 6 page letter to NRC, here
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0003

With a lot of references cited....32, but he is the author of 10 of them, LOL.

The ones not authored by Doss (think Dose), all have one thing in common, they call for actual real scientific studies to be done.    That is what is missing in all these papers....actual scientific studies.    They want to throw LNT out, and replace it with "radiation is good for you" without actually doing the studies.     And they are proposing random radiation to be unleashed on the public, not a controlled observed and closely monitored medical procedure.

Citation 31 from Doss list....
Given the high prevalence of breast and prostate cancer, and
evidence of LDI efficacy in other cancers, controlled studies of LDI
in breast or prostate cancer are suggested. Monitoring of specific
tumor markers in the blood, such as PSA, and CT images, would
provide an early indication of regression or lack thereof.
Citation number 1, is a $239 E-book, yeah thanks for that "citation" of which a chapter was publsihed in a website controlled by Doss, called Dose Response.  
Adaptive protections have a maximum after single tissue absorbed doses around 100–200 mSv and disappear with higher doses. Low dose-rates initiate maximum protection likely at lower cell doses delivered repetitively at certain time intervals. Adaptive protection preventing only about 2–3 % of endogenous lifetime cancer risk would fully balance a calculated-induced cancer risk at about 100 mSv, in agreement with epidemiological data and concordant with an hormetic effect. Low-dose-risk modeling must recognize up-regulation of protection.
If we accept this homesis promotion literature as "fact" even then their story falls apart rapidly on a quick review.    Those fine folks (Doss, Marcus, Miller) are proposing that dose rates up to 100mSV a year be acceptable.   But even the citiation above rejects that as "disappear with higher than 200mSV".   Disappear means that any potential benefit goes away, and only the bad is left.    Well people live more than 2 years....so there is a huge problem with a 100 mSV a year acceptable rate.    Even at 100mSv, if you take their statements as fact, you only only balancing out the bad with the good for a breakeven, NOT A NET BENEFIT.    The only benefit would be more profit to the radiation industries.     Seriously, in the USA average dose is somewhere between 3 and 6 mSV per year, so in 30 years, you would have 90 to 180 mSV cumulative.....the "sweet spots" for HORMESIS, but after that the benefits "disappear".   

 This is from the Canadian nuke plant worker study, and reanalysed study.

No matter how they try to reprocess the information to minimize the damage to their case, it matters not, clearly those getting over 100mSV career dose are getting 400% more cancer!    Over a 30 year carreer, that is just 3.33 mSv per year.     And Dr. Strangelove is proposing to allow 100mSv per year?  




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some of the comments on this Docket

One in particular I liked, in full here
I do not support the 10CFR20 rule change suggested by Mohan Doss, et al, Dr. Carol Marcus and Mark Miller in their petitions.

The similarity in their petitions makes me wonder who the "man behind the curtain" is that is pursuing this agenda:

From Dr. Carol Marcus' petition (citations removed for clarity):
I will present scientific data as reported in study after study to justify that safety regulations and policies should no longer be derived from the LNT model in order to ensure these requirements are more risk-informed... There has never been scientifically valid support for this LNT hypothesis since its use was recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR I)/Genetics Panel in 1956. The costs of complying with these LNT-based regulations are enormous. Prof. Dr. Gunnar Walinder has summed it up: The LNT is the greatest scientific scandal of the 20th century.

From Mark Miller's petition (citations removed for clarity):
I will present scientific data as reported in study after study to justify that safety regulations and policies should no longer be based on the scientifically unjustified LNT model... There has never been scientifically valid support for this LNT hypothesis since its use was recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR I)/Genetics Panel in 1956. The costs of complying with these LNT-based regulations are incalculable. Dr. Gunnar Walinder has summed it up: The LNT is the greatest scientific scandal of the 20th century.

All three petitioners state the current LNT-based regulations are not based on science. They suggest that low-levels of radiation may have a "hormetic" effect "in which low levels of potentially stressful agents, such as toxins, other chemicals, ionizing radiation, etc., protect against the deleterious effects that high levels of these stressors produce and result in beneficial effects (e.g. lower cancer rates)." (quote from Mr. Miller's petition).

All three petitioners say the benefit of this "hormetic" effect outweighs the cost of the current "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" principle. If this "hormetic" effect exists, then the current "Linear, no-Threshold" standard is denying the public the health advantage of a low radiation dose.

All three petitioners cite the research of B.L. Cohen to support the statement "Comparison of residential radon levels and lung cancer rates in the counties of the USA has shown an inverse correlation between radon levels and lung cancer rates" (quote from Mr. Doss' petition). That is their only substantiation of this "hormetic" principal for ionizing radiation.

Unfortunately, the World Health Organization said this about Cohen's research: "Cohens geographical correlation study has intrinsic methodological difficulties which hamper any interpretation as to causality or lack of causality"
(IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 78. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2001, p. 160)

I believe the current "Linear, no-Threshold" standard is satisfactory and that there is no substantial science upon which to base any change in the 10CFR20 limits.

I hope you extend the comment deadline as requested by numerous other commentors. This will allow for a reasoned, timely and informed discussion by commentors from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests.

About me:
I successfully completed the Reactor Operations class at the Reed Research Reactor
I graduated in the top half of my (Officer) class at Naval Nuclear Power School
I passed the Department of Energy, Division of Naval Reactors comprehensive "Nuclear Engineer Officer" exam

Thank you,
Daniel Burke
danielburke1@outlook.com
================================================================




  • Please do not change the safeguards currently in place to protect us. Nuclear workers assume additional risk of exposure to radiation. To rase the acceptable level of exposure to...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/20/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0085
  • Submitter Name:
    Jeff Davidson
  • This is nuts. Reminds me of 9 out of 10 doctors smoke Camels.
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/20/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0084
  • Submitter Name:
    Warren Woodward
  • Radiation is good for you? You are clearly out of your mind. Talk to Dr. Curie about how good radiation is for you... You are criminals if you actually are trying to push this...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0074
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • Are you all f****** insane?! Demonstrate it on yourselves first, show that it doesn't damage your DNA and give you cancer, then we'll consider believing you. Is it just a...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0071
  • Organization:
    Yourbusiness
  • Submitter Name:
    Noneof Yourbusiness
  • ha ha idiots nuclear power will kill us all. why we so stupid.
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0072
  • Submitter Name:
    steven harr
  • Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 Radiation leaking from Fukushima should not be a basis for relaxing standards. If the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection was wrong...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0073
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • Over the course of a lifetime, one will be exposed to natural sources of radiation that are unavoidable. Sunlight, cosmic rays, radon, and decaying uranium entombed in granite...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0075
  • Submitter Name:
    Jack Charbonneau
  • Leukemia can be caused in a developing human baby by simply x raying a pregnant woman. I believe the low dosage of this at least doubles the risk. Thus in the UK , where I live...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0081
  • Submitter Name:
    Jennifer Higgins
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0070
  • Submitter Name:
    Cecile Pineda
  • The idea that radiation hormesis (exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0076
  • Submitter Name:
    Pam Conley
undefined
  • I stand against this PRM. It seems dangerous to me to approve to change the Standards for Protection Against Radiation REGULATIONS based on the hormesis model HYPOTHESIS. When did...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0082
  • Submitter Name:
    Santiago Cecchini
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0068
  • Submitter Name:
    Bill Mauer
  • Not only is this a tragedy if passed, I would classify it as being murderous. There are thousands of studies and research articles that prove that not only is low dose exposure...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0077
  • Submitter Name:
    Jay Webber
  • If anyone thinks hormesis is a good thing, spend 3 minutes watching this: 'Chernobyl Decay and Deformed' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvAJ_u3Q0Hw Hormesis didn't work for...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0078
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • This sounds like an attempt for protection and proliferation of the nuclear industry without regard to public safety. Consider how FDA is constantly working to lower radiation...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0083
  • Submitter Name:
    Donna DiGangi
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0069
  • Submitter Name:
    Megan Dirsa-DuBois
  • The radiation hormesis model has not been adequately proven to have any benefits or mainstream medicine would already be prescribing our protective dose. The petitioners are...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0080
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0067
  • Submitter Name:
    Jana Bardach
  • Absolutely genocidal! All this increasing radiation is going to make me safer and stronger for all the upcoming nuke disasters and weapons exchanges.And our wonderful economy can...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0079
  • Submitter Name:
    anonymous anonymous
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0065
  • Submitter Name:
    Stephen Van Wagoner
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0066
  • Submitter Name:
    anonymous
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0063
  • Submitter Name:
    Scott Simmons
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    08/19/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0064
  • Submitter Name:
    Gail Payne
  • This theory is a lie! Nuclear power is a lie!
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0060
  • Submitter Name:
    Hazel Hampton
  • Ann Coulter and other hormesis theory promoters say all radiation is good for you and the more radiation a person gets, the better their health will be, but is this claim really...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0050
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • Research documents that dental x rays, CT scans, and space radiation are MORE harmful than predicted by the LNT model. Please contact me directly for sources. Ionizing radiation...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0051
  • Submitter Name:
    Majia Nadesan
  • Are you all INSANE?? If you really believe that is the case, then I would suggest you all take a sabbatical in Fukushima and personally test radiation exposure levels. It is only...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0057
  • Submitter Name:
    Carol Younce
  • Radiation is not good for us. NO to this proposal.
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0046
  • Submitter Name:
    Barbara Ann Levy
  • The radiation hormesis model has not been adequately proven to have any benefits or mainstream medicine would already be prescribing our protective dose. The petitioners are...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0059
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • Dear Sirs and Madams: Take into consideration these studies showing LOW LEVEL radiation can be harmful > >> @ 7.3 to 21.3 mSv = heart disease increase in arterial hypertension...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0062
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • Please! Radiation is dangerous at any level. Do not change the basis.
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0047
  • Submitter Name:
    Hollis Dolben
  • I am generally supportive of nuclear energy, but this rule is complete nonsense. There is of course no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Linear No Threshold model is...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0045
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • Amending the Standards for Protection Against Radiation from the LNT model to a hormesis model is a level of insanity I thought Id never witness in my lifetime. Exactly what are...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0052
  • Submitter Name:
    Shannon Ford
  • See attachments below The hormesis theory is a quack theory that should not see the light of day on mass media or at the NRC. List Of Medical Radiation Induced Diseases And...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0049
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • To Whom It May Concern, If you are going to take into consideration 30-year old research on hormesis, then it's only fair that you take into consideration Dr. John Gofman's...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0061
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • I do not support the 10CFR20 rule change suggested by Mohan Doss, et al, Dr. Carol Marcus and Mark Miller in their petitions. The similarity in their petitions makes me wonder who...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0048
  • Submitter Name:
    Daniel Burke
  • Please explain how radiation treatment for cancer in the 80s gave my grandmother a lethal brain tumor. Please explain how my mother was diagnosed with cancer so they irradiated her...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0054
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • CTs are generally the biggest source of radiation. The dose of a scan did not decrease that much in recent decades. Vendors made improvements, but physicians preferred to use them...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0055
  • Organization:
    CET Consultants
  • Submitter Name:
    Eric Zuesse
  • Please be sure there are NO safe levels of bio accumulating deadly toxins like the type that are created in Nuclear power generation. Most of these toxins will outlive us all, and...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0058
  • Organization:
    TRID
  • Submitter Name:
    Tim Rhone
  • I guess this is the only way to get the sheeple to accept the new higher " back ground" levels...and fallout from Fukushima. I suppose those 1200 beagle puppies died because they...
    I guess this is the only way to get the sheeple to accept the new higher " back ground" levels...and fallout from Fukushima. I suppose those 1200 beagle puppies died because they didn't get enough low level radiation...
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/3575304?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    Welcome to the new age.....personally I'm avoiding seafood and fruit/veggies from the west coast. I suggest the same..Do you remember the seals in Alaska after 3/11/2011. They didn't handle the fallout very well .
    Next you will want to build a high school over a nuke dump to prepare our students.....fools
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0053
  • Submitter Name:
    Anonymous Anonymous
  • Hormesis is not factual. There is no safe radiation levels for life. Any addition to background radiation increases disease, mutation, and cancer. Radiation levels currently...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/28/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0056
  • Submitter Name:
    William Mark Casebier
  • There is plenty of good data, evidence, and documented studies showing that low levels (Rems) of ionizing radiation exposure are not harmful. Use of the LNT model has resulted in...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/24/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0044
  • Submitter Name:
    Brian Rees
  • We have several contributions on acclimation, sometimes referred as hormesis. The unambiguous fact is that living organisms react to very low level doses, even several order of...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/24/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0042
  • Submitter Name:
    Jorge Herkovits
undefined
  • Comment and addenda by Pia C. Jensen 20 July 2015 Re: Docket ID NRC2015 0057 10 CFR Part 20 Comment Tracking Number: 1jz-8jzp-hc8u Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/24/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0043
  • Organization:
    none
  • Submitter Name:
    Pia Jensen
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/22/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0041
  • Submitter Name:
    Giovanni Pagano
  • In radiation oncology, it is well established that the temporal distribution is of critical importance. Due to DNA repair mechanisms, the effect of radiation distributed over weeks...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/22/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0038
  • Submitter Name:
    Philip Rosenkranz
  • In addition to re-examining the use of LNT for radiation protection, the use of emergency guidance dose levels derived based on LNT need to be urgently re-examined in coordination...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/22/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0040
  • Submitter Name:
    Eric Daxob
  • I am strongly supportive of changing the NRC standards from the LNT model to the hormesis model. Based on all my research on the topic, hormesis is the model that best fits the...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/22/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0039
  • Submitter Name:
    Hugh Henry
  • While a linear non-threshold model is overly conservative, overly restrictive, and significantly increases costs in terms of money, manpower, and resources, I personally feel that...
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/22/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0037
  • Submitter Name:
    Jason A Meade
undefined
  • See Attached
  • Public Submission
  • Posted:
    07/16/2015
  • ID:
    NRC-2015-0057-0036

15 comments:

  1. Hi Stock,

    Did you know:

    (1) Carol Marcus is also the name of a character on Star Trek

    (2) Rod Adams is asking for an extension for comments. Wonder why?

    (3) Saw this Petition on Enenews and figured it would go nicely here:

    "Protect children from radiation exposure!"

    https://www.change.org/p/united-states-nuclear-regulatory-commission-protect-children-from-radiation-exposure

    Thank you for your tireless work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya, I saw the Rod comment.
      LOL ya my Bing search for Marcus turned up some hot trekies, then I found her horrendous picture. This is the one SHE chooses to put on LinkedIn.

      Delete
  2. Cohen was a physics professor. Why would a physics professor undertake an epidemiological study on radon? Look at any physics textbook you like, you won't find epidemiology within it. It's because he received funding from the George C. Marshall Institute in order to manufacture doubt about radon. Why? Because it was thought that radon progeny could attach to smoke particles from cigarettes, and regulations were pending regarding second hand smoke. The Tobacco Institute funded the GCMI, and it looks like Cohen is an objective scientist, but he's not. See the book and documentary Merchants of Doubt.

    Ed Calabrese is the latest Merchant. He gets funding from the Cato Institute which is a carbon copy of the GCMI. He has commented within the petition. The SARI group follow him like sychophants. Their attacks on BEIR I originate from one of Calabrese's concocted claims. They claim to believe LNT was a conspiracy of the Rockefellers because they funded it. However LNT was the scientific consensus going back another decade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TY Bob, I will further research the Cohen issue. I get it, physics professor supporting nuclear.

      Delete
  3. No, that's not it all. He's an ideologue who views environmental regulation as socialism. That what the GCMI was about, they fought any kind of environmental regulation. Read the book Merchants of Doubt or see the documentary by the same name, both available at Amazon. The same with the Cato Institute, which was the Charles Koch Foundation (as in one of two anti-government billionaire brothers).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Remember, radon isn't associated with nuclear power....Cohen was trying to manufacture doubt about cigarettes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see, thanks for clarifying. funny how some people live their lives.

      Delete
  5. Yeah, but to the extent that people had doubts about cigarette safety and decided not to quit, it isn't funny. Some non-zero number of people died, we'll never know how many, so it's pretty close to murder.

    Anyway, my comment on the petitions is here:

    http://ribjoint.blogspot.com/2015/08/here-we-go-again.html

    People need to understand how money filters through "think tanks", and how the media doesn't help because they give both sides to an issue equal time, even though one side may simply be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks, I read it and will promote it

      Delete
  6. I like comment 11 . ☺

    Wonder who sent it. Most all of the comments opposing the petition are going to be discarded on the basis of emotional or personal attacks.

    Frankly as a nuclear proponent, I honestly think it gets the dialog going on the risk-benefit of the current policy however such a move would take at least ten more years to implement as there are 911 recommendations that have not been implemented. The wheels of government turn very slowly, at a glacial pace, but they do turn.

    The fact that LNT proponents do not understand hypothesis testing is a cause for concern. LNT is as hypothesis and that hypothesis must be tested to a signicance level in order to move off the hypothesis and into something more than that. I see no evidence this has occurred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loose, what is your take and that wicked ugly lady who states that young girls and babies should be allowed to be exposed to 100mSv per year.

      Why deprive them of the benefit of radiation.

      I believe this person to be a monster, worse than a sociopath.

      Delete
    2. Loose you never responded.

      Delete
  7. Interesting that one poster said "please don't add any more above background levels as any more is dangerous.

    This actually proves that LNT is bogus since 1) there are a wide range of background levels across the globe and 2) current levels of background radiation are harmless.

    If 2) then the " no safe dose " meme is a canard. If 1) and no correlation to cancer rates then LNT is a canard.

    Either way, the fact that LNT proponents are confused regarding "no safe dose" and acceptable levels of ANY background, shows a great inconsistency in their argument.

    I think I will put a new response that captures these inconsistencies in adopting LNT, excluding background radiation levels, and the slippery slope of the application of LNT without considering the very vast range of background and energy deposition.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hormesis is an ambiguous notion that typically gets seriously distorted and is often wrongly applied to all kinds of things.

    Per the "logical" theory - or rather, dogma - of hormesis you're chance of getting lung cancer is reduced if you were to smoke a few cigarettes every day ...

    It is interesting to note that it has been almost exclusively promoters and mouthpieces of the radiation-military-medical industries (or other big corporate cartels) who've been advocating the alleged virtues of radiation hormesis, ignoring and denying the real data. T. D. Luckey who advocates "We need more, not less radiation" has been a high-paying propagandist for the radiation cartel for decades, spreading their distortions and lies about the facts on ionizing radiation.

    The nuclear energy-radiation-medical industry cartel has been disregarding, minimizing, or suppressing the true dangers of low dose radiation for many decades - see "The Mammogram Myth" by Rolf Hefti (see outline at http://www.supplements-and-health.com/mammograms.html ).

    The ultimate aim of this propaganda is to discredit and suppress the facts that the lowest possible dose of ionizing radiation is carcinogenic (the pawns of the corporate environment-polluting industries do the same sort of thing about toxicants) and that these corrupt industries are responsible for the death of millions of people.

    The public at large is generally clueless about most of this because the cartel's dominant disinformation tool is the mainstream media. And their propaganda dissemination is ongoing, keeping the general public hypnotized with a made-up fake reality.

    The racket is profound and systematic. You can see that "in action" in how the corporate press and the mainstream authorities have blacked out what's really going on at Fukushima, or 9/11 (watch, on youtube, etc, the free online film "September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor"), or the ugly truth about the US Federal Reserve Bank, etc. The lack of continuous and in-depth media coverage of the ongoing disaster at Fukushima is indicative of the huge racket.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What are you LNT people going to do about Colorado? Its soil is regarded by US Geological Survey reports to have uranium at higher levels than normal for the nation, and its altitude guarantees that residents get cosmic ray doses at or above the levels where people say we ought to limit dosage and take action.

    Clearly, the Federal Government must evacuate all of its territory situated a mile or more above sea level, or where the uranium soil burden is naturally high - that's half of New Mexico, particularly the mountains and foothills, ALL of Denver, Colorado Springs, and the Rocky Mountains, Montana, and Wyoming, according to the LNT guidelines.

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments