". . . I am sending you some articles [doubting global warming] from Forbes, the Oakland Tribune and the New York Times which I think you will find of interest. While I would like to believe hat I have had something to do with this changing treatment of environmental issues by the media, I feel strongly that your work may have played an even stronger role in setting up the conditions for this change."
Hugh W. Elsaesser, Lawrence Ntl. Lab., Livermore, Calif.
Dear Dr Elsaesser: Thank you for the compliment, but it's the author of the message, not the messenger who deserves the credit. And it is no merit of an honest messenger that most in this vocation are incompetent or crooked.
I am sure you have noticed some of the retreat tactics. Both Science and the Economist implied that only the Nierenberg group [ATE Nov 89] questions the panic, and even then they falsely imply that the only alternative is the sunspot cycle theory. The Economist rarely corrects its constant biased blunders, but at least Science did not get away with it
¾see the four letters to the editor by Lindzen, Nierenberg, Jastrow, and Baliunas, Science, 1/5/90, pp.14-15.Cordially, P.B.
Hormesis lives! We know the health effects of radiation only at comparatively high values (Japanese bombs, radium dial painters, uranium miners, etc.). At low levels we have only indirect evidence, theories and guesses. It is like knowing the mortality in falls from certain heights: from 7 or 8 feet up it is easy to get data, but how many people in a million will injure themselves in "falling" from a height of 2 inches? The official policy of the Ntl. Council of Radiation Protection is to join the known points at high levels with a straight line to zero by the "linear, no threshold" hypothesis. The BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) Committee which has recently slightly changed the slope of the line has not changed this policy. This straight line guess says the more exposure to radon, the higher the risk of lung cancer. Prof. Bernard L. Cohen analyzed two groups of US counties in "Expected indoor 222-Rn levels in counties with very high and very low lung cancer rates," Health Physics, vol. 57, no.6, pp. 897-906, Dec. 1989. He carefully eliminated the effect of smoking (from known cigarette sales in the counties), and found the exact opposite of the straightline no-threshold hunch: the high cancer rate counties had low radon concentrations, and low lung cancer rates corresponded to high radon exposures. This is very strong support for hormesis and a refutation of the BEIR hunch.
|
Vol. 17, No. 6
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 17, No. 6 Date: December 01, 2004 03:29 PM Title: Radishes and watermelons
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|