Posted on 04/29/2017 1:06:26 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
In 1940, the U.S. National Bureau of Standards (NBS) built this 1,400,000-volt X-ray generator, the most powerful of its kind at the time. The machine was designed to deliver X-rays at an extremely stable voltage, a necessary attribute for the development of standard radiation dosage measurements as well as for research and testing of equipment to protect against X-ray radiation.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectrum.ieee.org ...
Or there is this report by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission which discusses the various models and concludes that it has adopted the LNT model as the most conservative.
Or there is this presentation by Fergus Coakley MD, Professor of Radiology and Urology pointing out what is wrong with the LNT. As he points out it is the difference between shooting fish in a barrel (one shot one dead fish) and speed in a car. 60 mph is not twices as unsafe as 30mph, but much higher because there is first, 4 time the energy to dissipate, and second there are thresh-holds.
But most of that is all in the realm of "opinion" even if formulated by experts.
Here is a genuine scholarly article by researchers at NIH on the issue The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data
That is what a proper scientific research article looks like for the education of anyone actually seduced by your blather.
Among the multiple problems with BEIR that makes it suspect is that it is all self-referential. It is a common problem with national academy studies, and in my view the national academies are an embarrassment to good science, mostly the same old guys going to the same old meetings on the same old subjects while staying in nice hotels and enjoying fancy meals (they are not bound by normal GSA rates for subsistence and accommodations).
Read the BEIR posts down thread for solid data about the biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. That’s most comprehensive. Responses to exposures vary and I think I recall that leukemia was most common in the Taiwan exposure. I think it counts as a “negative” effect if radiation exposure causes cancers (illness, suffering, surgery), leukemia and all those other illnesses. Radiation exposure also suppresses immune system function so some deaths are falsely attributed to diseases that would otherwise be survivable.
I forget sometimes that nuke apologists don’t care that radiation exposure damages quality of life and often does it for generations. Those with radiation related illnesses can battle exhausting illnesses their entire lives and then watch their offspring battle it and to nuke apologists -
that’s nothing. Absolutely nothing. In the Ukraine right now are the generations following Chernobyl and they live, ironically, half-lives filled with medical treatments or the unanswered need for treatments. What’s a baby shower like over there when you fear what genetic damage your children will face if exposure to radiation does not result in spontaneous abortion, the illnesses, the lost childhood. Shortly after Chernobyl, “most of the children in the village will too ill to play.” What it like to live like that? Nuke-o-philes don’t care. Personally, I think it’s important that radiation damage caused and is causing (Ukraine) significant dementia to people “too young” to have it - but, hey....they did’t die, right?
Your earlier argument about low level doses went south so now you go on a high level dose rant?
You have to remember that the nuke industry is married to the government and when people were citing data from Hiroshima proving LNT, “someone” gained authority to scramble the cohorts (exposures) and their actual position in the data permanently erased. No scientific mind did that.
Read John Goffman for a thorough discussion of how political pressure is brought to bear upon the unpleasant truth behind radiation from the point of it’s discovery - he was there. Goffman was the “Father of Plutonium”. He helped discover it and was a medical doctor who studied cancer himself. He details how data is scrambled to serve the nuke lobby and how there is nothing the nuke industry won’t do to silence critics.
But if you read the data BEFORE someone responds by scrubbing it, read your links and the BEIRS, and international studies and reports (e.g., Ukraine) like “The Consequences of Chernobyl” by The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Alexey V. YABLOKOV
Vassily B. NESTERENKO
Alexey V. NESTERENKO
coNsultiNG editor Janette d. sherman-Nevinger
VOLUME 1181
then you will understand that it isn’t as safe as nuke industry apologists say it is.
Oh you may have trouble finding that last report I mentioned though. Last time I looked for that report, it was extremely hard to find compared with its original availability. People kept citing it and we can’t have that, can we? Apparently the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences is, after all, susceptible to political pressure.
John Goffman (sic):
Anti-nuclear nut proven wrong many times.
Wow! You REALLY know nothing about the BEIR nor the New York Academy of Sciences and yet it’s all available on the web.
Here’s the “same old guys going to the same old meetings on the same old subjects while staying in nice hotels and enjoying fancy meals “
http://www.nyas.org/AboutUs/WhoWeAre.aspx
And here’s their publications:
http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Default.aspx
Classic nuke apologist strategy - smear anyone with data that shows the truth. John Goffman (”The Father Of Plutonium) led an honorable life, contributed to science nobly and is ridiculed as “crazy” by the nuke industry because his medical studies and radiological expertise revealed that radiation is harmful to human health.
“Father of plutonium”
LOL!
I already supplied evidence and research supporting low level doses are harmful.
“John Goffman (”The Father Of Plutonium) “
ROTFLMAO!
Perfect! The perfect nuke industry pose. It’s the Alinsky technique in action, but it doesn’t work because his research and respect within the legitimate scientific community endures. Laughter is all you have.
This is a bit of a distraction from the issue. The underlying question is not the immune system's ability to recognize and neutralize a cancerous sell after it has formed.
The issue has to do with recent discoveries is cellular biology that cells contain within them mechanisms to repair "broken" DNA. Of course one would predict that from evolution - e.g. that if environmental alteration of DNA (e.g. chemical or radiation) is detrimental to survival, then the cells that evolved a capability to repair those alterations is more fit and will have a survival advantage.
But I don't have a dog in this particular fight, whichever way it comes out.
The bone in contention is the corrupt panel of government shills and their followers who cravenly produce the views their agencies pay them to produce so that they can stay on the scientific advisory gravy train.
The obvious sign is that they don't argue like good scientists. They argue like use car salesmen. If they have good arguments they don't use them. Instead they drag out bad arguments, swindles and obfuscations. Why? It's far worse than intellectual laziness.
“ridiculed as “crazy” by the nuke industry because his medical studies and radiological expertise revealed that radiation is harmful to human health.”
Ridiculed as crazy because he was always proven wrong on effects of low level radiation.
LOL. Your posts show that you are totally brainwashed with FAKE NEWS.
He is too far gone for facts to matter any longer.
If the body’s immune system is overburdened, the body has increased difficulty/failure in it’s ability to repair cellular damage caused by radiation.
Here is a book you might enjoy, A New Dawn for the New Left.
Features Lovejoy and Gofman.
E.g. John Goffman (”The Father Of Plutonium) . What we find is that "Later in life, Gofman took on a role as an advocate warning of dangers involved with nuclear power." We also learn "Gofman was instrumental in inducing the health physics scientific community both to acknowledge the cancer risks of ionizing radiation and to adopt the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model as a means of estimating actual cancer risks from low-level radiation and as the foundation of the international guidelines for radiation protection."
I think that Marie Curie already had acknowledged the risks of ionizing radiation as a result of her health issues working with Radium and Polonium, and it was never under serious question.
And there we have it - he proposed the LNT model to estimate the effects. Well bowl me over with a feather. Yes, of course, when you have nothing else the linear model is the first thing you use to estimate anything. Distance of a falling object - you use a linear model - which you discover is wrong, but you have to start somewhere. But just because a "brilliant" student of Glenn Seaborg's proposed the linear model is not a justification for the linear model and does not relieve anyone of establishing a scientific basis for it.
And he was not actually the father of Plutonium. Seaborg was and no one argues otherwise.
If you over exercise the body has increased difficulty repairing damaged cells.
Actually scientists rely upon grant money and the government can and has stripped scientists of funding if they provide research that exposes radiation effects on human health. That’s why there are little if any legitimate scientific studies of the ways in which air travel (and passengers attendant exposure to radiation) impacts human health. What the government doesn’t want studied, the government doesn’t fund. It’s why no lab in Oregon, Washington, and California would analyze civilian collected samples of plants/soil for radiation following Fukushima - they don’t want to lose their federal funding. Berkely Univ. initially published reports showing they detected radioactive deposits (downwind from Fukushima) in neighboring land and milk cows feeding there, but that sure was shut down fast - within a few months, all milk and foliage samples were clean clean clean! It’s a miracle, I tell you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.