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>
****************************************************
>
>