RE: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Russ George]

Or in more direct wording the benefit of the mentioned radiation was a greater 
than 30 fold reduction in cancer when compared to those people who were not 
"accidentally' exposed to long term Co60 radiation.  Children born to parents 
exposed to the radiation showed 14 times fewer congenital defects! The list 
goes on. The whole topic of radiation and humans has been forever the victim of 
lies by those with economic and political power aspirations, avarice, and 
arrogance.

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 2:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

Not only is there good evidence that the LNT theory is wrong, there is quite a 
lot of evidence for hormesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
"The observation that the cancer mortality rate of the exposed population is 
only about 3 percent of the cancer mortality rate of the general public" (!)

I know this paper was challenged but it was in general terms, rather like you 
know AGW is true because the consensus says so.

LNT is the safe, conservative theory, but what most people don't realize is 
just how much money it costs, that is probably unnecessary.

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[a.ashfield]

Not only is there good evidence that the LNT theory is wrong, there is 
quite a lot of evidence for hormesis.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
"The observation that the cancer mortality rate of the exposed 
population is only about 3 percent of the cancer mortality rate of the 
general public" (!)


I know this paper was challenged but it was in general terms, rather 
like you know AGW is true because the consensus says so.


LNT is the safe, conservative theory, but what most people don't realize 
is just how much money it costs, that is probably unnecessary.

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/25/2016 03:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
At the other extreme . . . I do not know whether radiation actually 
promotes health. I have heard it might, but I have not read the 
studies, so I cannot judge. But biology is full of surprises, so I 
would not discount the possibility.


Dunno if this'll upload -- I can't recall what the threshold is. Worth 
it if it does.

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Well that sucks.  I can totally imagine the ending, tho -- the one thing 
Abd was really, really poor at was shutting up.


In any case, if a troll (Christian or not, sounds like that's what it 
was) provoked someone so badly that both the troll and the target were 
banned, that /certainly/ doesn't justify keeping /another/ troll on the 
rolls so they can try the same trick, this time in the political arena.


Anyhow that's my feeling about it, but I've gotten a lot less patient 
with such stuff over the years.


In any case this sub-discussion is totally unrelated to energy, free, 
possible, plausible, or otherwise, and so I will say nothing more about it.



On 06/25/2016 03:49 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

It's about keeping standards... not justifying 2 wrongs.

Abd was banned, I think, 3 years ago, when a Christian creationist was 
attacking Abd for being Muslim and Abd was defending his religion 
relentlessly, but providing historical facts and explaining things in 
context. The attack lasted for 2 or 3 weeks with a few hundreds of 
messages from both sides. In the end, both were banned. The attacker 
came back eventually, I don't remember what happened to him after, though.



2016-06-25 15:47 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence >:



And  */Abd was banned??/*  When was that?  And why?

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Bob Higgins]

I think there probably is a relatively high threshold for ionizing
radiation, below which no statistically significant increases in lukemia,
Parkinsons, and other cancers will be found.  The danger is that some
people may be extraordinarily sensitive and WILL develop these illnesses
when exposed to doses below the threshold (wherever you place it).  Since
radiations are unseen and hard for the general populace to detect and
quantize their dose, how do we protect the canaries in our midst?  Today it
is unlikely there is any way to medically screen who may be extraordinarily
sensitive to ionizing radiations.  Before a threshold can be set to allow
extraneous radiations into our environment we must know how sensitive the
canaries will prove to be.  We cannot just kill the canaries for the profit
of the masses.

OTOH, if the "canaries" are just a few ppm; as a society, it may be to our
net benefit to spend the money to detect who will be sensitive to ionizing
radiations and then take extraordinary means to educate them and give them
the means to protect themselves.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

> How much difference does this make, in practical terms?  I'm not sure it's
> all that significant.
>
> If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold below
> which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is no
> "medical threshold".
>
> As an analogy which may help to clarify this, consider that *there is no
> threshold for automobile accidents*.  No matter how slowly everyone is
> forced to drive, there will *still* be accidents.  Fatalities presumably
> have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, and
> reducing that speed will *always* save lives.  But that doesn't lead to
> the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to zero
> and force everyone to walk, because *it is a tradeoff*.  *Nothing* in
> life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need to do
> is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small relative to
> other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.
>
> In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still an
> *economic* threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to PANIC!"
> crowd refuses to see it.
>
>
> On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:
>
> Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation
>
>
> On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker buster”
> salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.
>
> On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of
> radiation. They assert that radiation protection regulations should
> continue using a linear, no threshold model.
>
> The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has been
> gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no permanent
> damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a modest health
> improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. They believe that the
> LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job of protecting people from
> harm.
> ​ ​
>
>
> (​more at link)​
>
> ​ ​
> ​
>
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Jed Rothwell]

People and all other species have been exposed to some radiation, from
cosmic sources, the sun, and from things like radon and uranium on earth.
Biological systems are incredibly good at self-repair. So it seems unlikely
to me that low level exposure always causes significant or even measurable
harm.

We are exposed to elemental toxins such as arsenic, yet even people with
slightly elevated levels of arsenic are often okay. As far as anyone can
see their health and longevity is not affected. Then again, you cannot run
a person's life over from scratch to find out if he might have lived a few
years longer with a slightly lower level of arsenic.

At the other extreme . . . I do not know whether radiation actually
promotes health. I have heard it might, but I have not read the studies, so
I cannot judge. But biology is full of surprises, so I would not discount
the possibility.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Daniel Rocha]

It's about keeping standards... not justifying 2 wrongs.

Abd was banned, I think, 3 years ago, when a Christian creationist was
attacking Abd for being Muslim and Abd was defending his religion
relentlessly, but providing historical facts and explaining things in
context. The attack lasted for 2 or 3 weeks with a few hundreds of messages
from both sides. In the end, both were banned. The attacker came back
eventually, I don't remember what happened to him after, though.


2016-06-25 15:47 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence :

>
> And  *Abd was banned??*  When was that?  And why?
>

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I dunno -- I looked back a ways and didn't see anything interesting from 
Che, and saw a bunch of trolling garbage.


And  */Abd was banned??/*  When was that?  And why? He was the most 
long winded poster I've encountered in a long time, and a bit 
tendentious, but his posts were generally on topic, carefully reasoned 
out, and, as far as I can recall, always respectful.


(And why would /unbanning/ Abd provide grounds to /ban/ Che?)

On 06/25/2016 02:29 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I think he posted useful comments before and there was a trouble maker 
here before, way worse than this, bad mouthing Abd due his religion. 
So, unless _Abd is unbanned_, I cannot see fair grounds to ban Che.


2016-06-25 15:23 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence >:


Hallo, Bill!  Sorry to bother you about this

"Che" is a pseudonym with no information about the actual person
behind it.  That's not forbidden but it's not exactly smiled on
either.

"Che" mostly posts troll stuff and ad hominems.  No surprise,
given the choice of pseudonym, which is political rather than
scientific.

"Che" doesn't post physics, nor intelligent energy technology
commentary in general.  Again, no surprise, given the pseudonym.

*"Che" should be kicked out of the group IMHO.*

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

How much difference does this make, in practical terms?  I'm not sure 
it's all that significant.


If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold 
below which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is 
no "medical threshold".


As an analogy which may help to clarify this, consider that /there is no 
threshold for automobile accidents/.  No matter how slowly everyone is 
forced to drive, there will /still/ be accidents.  Fatalities presumably 
have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, 
and reducing that speed will /always/ save lives.  But that doesn't lead 
to the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to 
zero and force everyone to walk, because /it is a tradeoff/. _Nothing_ 
in life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need 
to do is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small 
relative to other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.


In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still 
an /economic/ threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to 
PANIC!" crowd refuses to see it.



On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:

Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation


On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker 
buster” salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.


On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of 
radiation. They assert that radiation protection regulations should 
continue using a linear, no threshold model.


The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has 
been gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no 
permanent damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a 
modest health improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. 
They believe that the LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job 
of protecting people from harm.

​ ​


(​more at link)​

​ ​
​
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Daniel Rocha]

I think he posted useful comments before and there was a trouble maker here
before, way worse than this, bad mouthing Abd due his religion. So, unless
Abd is unbanned, I cannot see fair grounds to ban Che.

2016-06-25 15:23 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence :

> Hallo, Bill!  Sorry to bother you about this
>
> "Che" is a pseudonym with no information about the actual person behind
> it.  That's not forbidden but it's not exactly smiled on either.
>
> "Che" mostly posts troll stuff and ad hominems.  No surprise, given the
> choice of pseudonym, which is political rather than scientific.
>
> "Che" doesn't post physics, nor intelligent energy technology commentary
> in general.  Again, no surprise, given the pseudonym.
>
> *"Che" should be kicked out of the group IMHO.*
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Hallo, Bill!  Sorry to bother you about this

"Che" is a pseudonym with no information about the actual person behind 
it.  That's not forbidden but it's not exactly smiled on either.


"Che" mostly posts troll stuff and ad hominems.  No surprise, given the 
choice of pseudonym, which is political rather than scientific.


"Che" doesn't post physics, nor intelligent energy technology commentary 
in general.  Again, no surprise, given the pseudonym.


*"Che" should be kicked out of the group IMHO.*


On 06/25/2016 09:41 AM, *Che wrote:*

*WTF do you know about anything, eh? Typical knee-jerk crap*...

[Vo]:LENR comment, info, more from Sochi

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-25-2016-lenr-comments-info-more.html

a nostalgic and a sad comment please read the info you will discover
interesting things

Peter


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Ok, so who let the troll in… 

 

From: Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 6:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Lennart Thornros
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

 

WTF do you know about anything, eh? Typical knee-jerk crap from people who in 
fact believe some corporation are going to shower their little LENR projects 
with oodles of cash at some point, and make them filthy rich.. So of course 
they support this bastard social-economic order, however bad it is for everyone 
else.

 

C'mon admit it. That's the true end-goal, for many of you here. Worked for 
Rossi and the others, huh?

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Che
How did you become a pro?
Reading a book?
That goes a long way, but in the end it is like in science the experience of 
physical experiment is what counts.
Then you will find there are many opinions and in my book they are all ok. 
Seldom are we 100% right.

On Jun 24, 2016 21:30, "Che"  wrote:

OT for vortex-l, but a short reply (since an off-hand slagging of 'communism' 
was prominent in a LENR article):

 

No good marxist need learn any lessons from poor old East Europeans about 
'communism'. We know from long, personal experience with you all, that 99% of 
you are clueless about it. All you people really have is your lived experience 
of 'Actually-Existing Socialism' -- i.e. stalinism -- and the willingness of 
westerners to use you for the propaganda value in having hated it (just to 
throw you away, after, when your services are no longer required...)

 

All of which is pretty useless for the most part, for the World working-class. 
And completely and utterly wrong, need I add.

 

So like I said: stick to LENR science. You're no good at the politics thing. 
Leave it to us pros.

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

Dear Che,

 

what do you want to know about Communism?

my experience with it is from 1948 to 1989 Romanian style.

Feel free to ask anything

Peter

 

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Che  wrote:

 

 

Gluck is clearly not qualified to comment on 'communism' -- or probably 
anything else political, for that matter.

 

Well, he did live under communism for a long time, so he can draw no personal 
experience.

 

- Jed

 





 

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

 

 

[Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[H LV]

Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation


On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker buster”
salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.

On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of radiation.
They assert that radiation protection regulations should continue using a
linear, no threshold model.

The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has been
gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no permanent
damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a modest health
improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. They believe that the
LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job of protecting people from
harm.
​​


(​more at link)​

​​
​
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Peter Gluck]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Che
> How did you become a pro?
> Reading a book?
> That goes a long way, but in the end it is like in science the experience
> of physical experiment is what counts.
> Then you will find there are many opinions and in my book they are all ok.
> Seldom are we 100% right.
> On Jun 24, 2016 21:30, "Che"  wrote:
>
>> OT for vortex-l, but a short reply (since an off-hand slagging of
>> 'communism' was prominent in a LENR article):
>>
>> No good marxist need learn any lessons from poor old East Europeans about
>> 'communism'. We know from long, personal experience with you all, that 99%
>> of you are clueless about it. All you people really have is your lived
>> experience of 'Actually-Existing Socialism' -- i.e. stalinism -- and the
>> willingness of westerners to use you for the propaganda value in having
>> hated it (just to throw you away, after, when your services are no longer
>> required...)
>>
>> All of which is pretty useless for the most part, for the World
>> working-class. And completely and utterly wrong, need I add.
>>
>> So like I said: stick to LENR science. You're no good at the politics
>> thing. Leave it to us pros.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Peter Gluck 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Che,
>>>
>>> what do you want to know about Communism?
>>> my experience with it is from 1948 to 1989 Romanian style.
>>> Feel free to ask anything
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Che  wrote:



> Gluck is clearly not qualified to comment on 'communism' -- or
> probably anything else political, for that matter.
>

 Well, he did live under communism for a long time, so he can draw no
 personal experience.

 - Jed


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Che]

WTF do you know about anything, eh? Typical knee-jerk crap from people who
in fact believe some corporation are going to shower their little LENR
projects with oodles of cash at some point, and make them filthy rich.. So
of course they support this bastard social-economic order, however bad it
is for everyone else.

C'mon admit it. That's the true end-goal, for many of you here. Worked for
Rossi and the others, huh?




On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Che
> How did you become a pro?
> Reading a book?
> That goes a long way, but in the end it is like in science the experience
> of physical experiment is what counts.
> Then you will find there are many opinions and in my book they are all ok.
> Seldom are we 100% right.
> On Jun 24, 2016 21:30, "Che"  wrote:
>
>> OT for vortex-l, but a short reply (since an off-hand slagging of
>> 'communism' was prominent in a LENR article):
>>
>> No good marxist need learn any lessons from poor old East Europeans about
>> 'communism'. We know from long, personal experience with you all, that 99%
>> of you are clueless about it. All you people really have is your lived
>> experience of 'Actually-Existing Socialism' -- i.e. stalinism -- and the
>> willingness of westerners to use you for the propaganda value in having
>> hated it (just to throw you away, after, when your services are no longer
>> required...)
>>
>> All of which is pretty useless for the most part, for the World
>> working-class. And completely and utterly wrong, need I add.
>>
>> So like I said: stick to LENR science. You're no good at the politics
>> thing. Leave it to us pros.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Peter Gluck 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Che,
>>>
>>> what do you want to know about Communism?
>>> my experience with it is from 1948 to 1989 Romanian style.
>>> Feel free to ask anything
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Che  wrote:



> Gluck is clearly not qualified to comment on 'communism' -- or
> probably anything else political, for that matter.
>

 Well, he did live under communism for a long time, so he can draw no
 personal experience.

 - Jed


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Lennart Thornros]

Che
How did you become a pro?
Reading a book?
That goes a long way, but in the end it is like in science the experience
of physical experiment is what counts.
Then you will find there are many opinions and in my book they are all ok.
Seldom are we 100% right.
On Jun 24, 2016 21:30, "Che"  wrote:

> OT for vortex-l, but a short reply (since an off-hand slagging of
> 'communism' was prominent in a LENR article):
>
> No good marxist need learn any lessons from poor old East Europeans about
> 'communism'. We know from long, personal experience with you all, that 99%
> of you are clueless about it. All you people really have is your lived
> experience of 'Actually-Existing Socialism' -- i.e. stalinism -- and the
> willingness of westerners to use you for the propaganda value in having
> hated it (just to throw you away, after, when your services are no longer
> required...)
>
> All of which is pretty useless for the most part, for the World
> working-class. And completely and utterly wrong, need I add.
>
> So like I said: stick to LENR science. You're no good at the politics
> thing. Leave it to us pros.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Che,
>>
>> what do you want to know about Communism?
>> my experience with it is from 1948 to 1989 Romanian style.
>> Feel free to ask anything
>> Peter
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Che  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Gluck is clearly not qualified to comment on 'communism' -- or probably
 anything else political, for that matter.

>>>
>>> Well, he did live under communism for a long time, so he can draw no
>>> personal experience.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>