From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: "Deadly Deceit, Low-Level Rad., High-Level Coverup," It's Not Too Late
Keywords: examining low-level radiation effects of nuclear bomb tests/reactors
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 03:19:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.152036.12411@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:
>    A distinction 
>    should be made between the nuclear scientists who permitted national 
>    security to take precedence over unwanted truths, and the majority of 
>    scientists and physicians who have been unaware of the evidence that 
>    free radical-induced biological damage may be thousands of times more 
>    efficient at low doses of radiation than at high ones. . . .

Or the "majority" that believe it's the other way around?

>    products to accumulate in much higher concentrations than naturally
>    occurring isotopes.  For example, when cows graze over large exposed
>    areas, the radioactive iodine will concentrate in them.  When people
>    ingest contaminated milk, water, root vegetables, or fruits, the
>    adverse effects continue to multiply as the radioactive substances
>    concentrate in organs such as the fetal thyroid or the bone marrow of

Please show how the body can discern between "natural" and "man-made"
radioisotopes. Also, with iodine isotopes having half-live on the order
of hours to days, please show how the iodine will go from reactor to cow
to butcher to you in that time frame.

>    perverse supra-linear nature of the dose response, with lower levels
>    of radiation potentially being hundreds to thousands of times more
>    efficient in producing the free radicals that penetrate and destroy
>    the blood cells of immune systems?

This hypothesis ignores the fact that the body handles low-level
radiation like a vaccine, with the body's capability to repair itself.

>       If this knowledge is deemed subversive and is thus excluded from
>    established scientific journals, physicians will never consider the
>    potential effect on the immune systems of their patients. . . . 

Without hard proof, it will remain "subversive".

>       {Suddenly, the question flashed through my mind:  When were
>       these young people born or in their mother's womb?  Most of them
>       were 18 years old when they graduated from high school.  What
>       was 18 taken from 1975?  It was 1957, the year when the largest
>       amount of radioactive fallout ever measured descended on the
>       U.S. from the highest kilotonnage of nuclear weapons ever
>       detonated in Nevada.[193]}

That people believe this is very scary indeed. Fallout comprises about 
0.5% of the annual total body dose.

>       These findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American
>    Psychological Association in September 1979.  There it was predicted
>    that SAT scores would begin to improve again in 1981, 18 years after
>    atmospheric bomb tests stopped in 1963. . . .  SAT scores have risen 
>    since 1981, confirming Sternglass's prediction.[195]

Why?

>    This book has tried to indicate the potential toll in human lives that
>    low-level radiation from nuclear bomb tests and reactors has exacted

Coal plants release more radioactivity than nuke plants. This argument is
shot.

>       The federal government has recently admitted that radioactive
>    contamination caused a significant loss of life on at least two
>    occasions, and in both cases denied victims the right to sue for

Shall we tally up the loss of coal miners, etc.?

>    and the majority of scientists and physicians who have been unaware of
>    the evidence that free radical-induced biological damage may be
>    thousands of times more efficient at low doses of radiation than at
>    high ones.

"May be", but probably not.

>       Unlike the government and the nuclear industry, physicians have no
>    vested interest in perpetuating nuclear myths on political or economic
>    grounds, and may--indeed must--become increasingly concerned about the
>    effects of free radicals on the human immune system.  The most

They should--almost every hospital uses radiopharmacy to treat patients.

>    simply by transporting the millions of curies of deadly materials to
>    repositories nobody wants, sixteen accidents per year could occur, any
>    one on the scale of Three Mile Island.[190]

Please explain the loss of life and environmental damage from TMI--none.

>       These huge volumes of nuclear waste may end up staying just where
>    they are. 

Unlike coal plants, that can send it up the stack.

>    The sociologist Dr. R. J. Pellegrini has studied an FBI database of
>    Uniform Crime Reports going back to 1945 and discovered that rates of
>    criminal homicide, forcible rape and aggravated assault doubled in the
>    1970's as compared with previous decades, just as the baby boomers
>    entered in the age group 15 to 24.  Crime rates for those 15 to 34
>    years of age are now at all time peaks, a fact Dr. Pellegrini
>    attributes to their exposure to radiation from fallout.[198]

How about disco? Or anything else that increased in the 70s? Polyester?

>       Businesses are spending millions of dollars a year on remedial
>    reading and arithmetic instruction, because many young adults entering
>    the labor force are unqualified for work.[199]  To what extent might
>    exposure to bomb-test fallout contribute to this deterioration of
>    abilities, which is most commonly blamed on a breakdown in the
>    American school system?

I'll repeat: Fallout is 0.5% of whole body radiation dose.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------