I agree that there are not a lot of proofs but I don't consider myself a
babe in the woods. teach a graduate course in health research and
evaluation and a couple on international health and feel that there are
tremendous pressures on expert committees to go with the flow. Here is another
interesting link which raises some good questions but doesn't necessarily
answer them:
The truth is that there simply is not an easy way to track a large
population of people who have consumed large amounts of irradiated foods over
a period of time long enough to ensure confidence.
The most important issue, which most methods courses gloss over, is that
the use of a p value of .05 is a political decision and is done to favor the
outcome of no significant link. I have a 2 year old granddaughter and for
me WHO pronouncements are not good enough.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:35:31 -0700 Harry Pollard <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Bill,
>
> Enjoyed the site, but not much of the
"proofs".
>
> Irradiation is approved by a slew of scientific and
food
> organizations
> including the Food and Drug
Administration, the World Health
> Organization
> and the
American Medical Association.
>
> The experiments on the web page
reminds me of the rat experiments
> back when
> I did my paper
on DDT 30 years. All I can say is that the rat
> experiments I
>
encountered - and have encountered since - were often pretty poor
> and on
> occasion outright criminal.
>
> My
favorite resulted in a presentation at the annual meeting of the
>
American Cancer Society. The two "scientists" had discovered that
> DDT
> caused tumors on the reproductive organs of rats, This was of course
> picked
> up by the LA Times as "DDT linked to cancer of the
reproductive
> organs.
> (You would never believe how often
tumors become cancers.)
>
> The truth? These so-called scientists
had given 250,000 times the
> average
> human exposure of a
technical DDT to neonates on the first, second
> and
> third day
of their lives. (I can't remember whether they gave it on
> the 4th
> day.) For some reason I assumed they had fed it to the rats. A
> biologist
> from up north of me put me right - calling me "too
conservative".
>
> These idiots had injected (!) this technical
DDT on each of the
> first days
> of their lives. So, what
happened?
>
> Nothing.
>
> So, they kept the rats
around until they reached the human
> equivalent of
> the
forties and then found tumors. Wow! Success - and 15 minutes of
>
fame.
>
> If you frighten rats they can get tumors. Florescent
lights can give
> them
> tumors. Heck, feeding them raisins can
give them tumors. Keep them
> around
> long enough and
they'll probably get tumors just to spite us.
>
> So, put a
saltcellar on your desk when you look at many of these
> sites
>
though you will only need a grain or two.
>
> Many of these sites
start out with the premise that radiation is
> bad, then
> look
for anything that may corroborate it.
>
> Hey! That sounds like
the modus operandi of the IPCC.
>
> Harry
>
>
-------------------------------------------
>
> William
wrote:
>
> >Harry,
> >
> >There are a bunch
of sites like the following for your perusal. I
> have
> >not
evaluated this one but it looks interesting:
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.mercola.com/article/Diet/irradiated/irradiated_research.htm>
>
> >Bill
> >
> >On Fri, 30 May 2003 14:27:06
-0700 Harry Pollard
> ><
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > It isn't
controversial. It's simply a political furor stimulated
> by
>
> > political agendas - I would think by the anti-nuclear
fanatics.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, we know a lot
about salmonella
> > >
> > > Meantime, although Keith
doesn't believe it, there seems to be
> > > evidence
> >
> that low-level radiation is good for us.
> > >
> >
> Harry
>
>
>
****************************************************
> Harry
Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
>
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel:
(818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
>
http://home.attbi.com/~haledward>
****************************************************
>
>
