Scientists And Agendas

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:39 am

When Scientists start to use their research in support of an agenda, the truth sometimes disappears. This is huge:

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsrel ... 136706.php

How much fear has been engendered about low levels of radiation long after the scientists were gone from the scene. How much has the linear model for exposure held us in it's thrall. Even when it was possibly a lie all along and the scientists knew it was, but suppressed the data that would have raised questions because they had an agenda, insisting on a consensus based on lies.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:02 pm

Can anyone say IPCC?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/b ... from-foia/

Tom Ligon · Post by **Tom Ligon** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:09 pm

A couple of nights ago my wife and I watched an interesting PBS show on Chernobyl, particularly on wolves living in the evacuated zone.

In this particular case they can document very clearly that the radiation is very good for the wolves. While there probably are some negative health effects, in fact the area is recovering to essentially natural population levels of all species, due to humans bugging out.

At some low level, regardless of any threshold below which there is either no effect or an actual beneficial effect, ionizing radiation must necessarily vanish into the noise of causes of mortality. If, for example, not having nukes gets you overrun by a neighbor with a huge population armed with conventional weapons, the mortality caused by the invasion will certainly dwarf any effects due to nuclear testing.

RWB actually bragged to me about the doses of radiation he received during his cancer treatment. It far exceeded anything he had been exposed to as a nuclear scientist, and probably did help prolong his life a little.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:03 am

Tom Ligon wrote:A couple of nights ago my wife and I watched an interesting PBS show on Chernobyl, particularly on wolves living in the evacuated zone.

In this particular case they can document very clearly that the radiation is very good for the wolves. While there probably are some negative health effects, in fact the area is recovering to essentially natural population levels of all species, due to humans bugging out.

At some low level, regardless of any threshold below which there is either no effect or an actual beneficial effect, ionizing radiation must necessarily vanish into the noise of causes of mortality. If, for example, not having nukes gets you overrun by a neighbor with a huge population armed with conventional weapons, the mortality caused by the invasion will certainly dwarf any effects due to nuclear testing.

RWB actually bragged to me about the doses of radiation he received during his cancer treatment. It far exceeded anything he had been exposed to as a nuclear scientist, and probably did help prolong his life a little.

IIRC Ted Taylor, interviewed by George Dyson for his book "Project Orion," expressed a contempt for "standard" radiation-threat methodology.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:57 pm

IIRC Ted Taylor, interviewed by George Dyson for his book "Project Orion," expressed a contempt for "standard" radiation-threat methodology.

It is conservative.

In studies of radiation vs animal populations it would be really nice to know if there are genetic shifts. i.e. was there an initial die off.

Possibly not important for the animal kingdom. But it would certainly interest humans.

Hormesis is the word to look for on dose vs effect.

Tom Ligon · Post by **Tom Ligon** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:19 pm

In a sense, the question of overly-safe radiation standards is not really properly directed at some failing of science. It is, rather, a consequence of the nature of committees. First, you must ask yourself what sort of person would volunteer to be on a committee setting standards. Most working scientists will avoid this like the plague, as a distraction from real work. This leaves people with nothing better to do who are looking to put their names on something. They probably have an interest and at least some expertise in the subject ... likely they are on a safety committee at their institution, further evidence that they are probably marginalized from mainstream R&D.

Second, the members know they are putting their names on something that affects workplace and public safety. If they set the standards too liberally, and an injury results, they worry about the legal consequences. On the other hand if they set the standards overly safe, they don't have to worry about footing the bill themselves.

Committees do have agendas. I think Roberts Rules of Order require it.

So waddaya expect?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:24 pm

Tom Ligon wrote:In a sense, the question of overly-safe radiation standards is not really properly directed at some failing of science. It is, rather, a consequence of the nature of committees.

The lead article suggests that in this case the overly conservative requirements WERE due to a scientist with an agenda.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:56 pm

Seems to me the writer is asking us to jump to a conclusion just as it claims Muller did. It only addresses the one set of test results that Muller concealed. I find it very difficult to imagine that there have been no tests since. The linear model does after all, make perfect sense. If you had to guess, you'd guess that model is correct. Things like chemical photography react according to that model, so why would not all genetics?

I think this guy Calabrese is making a big deal out of Muller's interpretation of the data for self-serving reasons. He's a long way from demonstrating the linear model is wrong. One test, 65 years ago, does not a refutation make.

Does seem there needs to be a much more careful appraisal of the data though.

Oh and lets please dispense with this notion that the public is horrified about any scant amounts of radiation. The public has never been so skittish. We have known for decades how damaging and dangerous tanning is and the beaches are still full, folks.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:36 pm

GIThruster wrote:Seems to me the writer is asking us to jump to a conclusion just as it claims Muller did. It only addresses the one set of test results that Muller concealed. I find it very difficult to imagine that there have been no tests since. The linear model does after all, make perfect sense. If you had to guess, you'd guess that model is correct. Things like chemical photography react according to that model, so why would not all genetics?

Becasue the issue isn't chemistry, it is biology. And biological systems almost ALWAYS behave hormetically. Without this bilogical characteristic we could never get immunity to diseases, we would be sickly all the time since we ALLWAYS have toxins around us to which we whould have some negative reaction...

Since the pattern with biological systems is hormesis, it makes NO sense to think radiation is somehow a special case. And since all the data I've seen shows that linear-thru-zero radiotoxicity effect is NOT what happens but hormesis is, seems to me that such would be the better basis for regulation.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:53 pm

KitemanSA wrote: Since the pattern with biological systems is hormesis, it makes NO sense to think radiation is somehow a special case.

Ahem. Arguing an absolute in principle.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:59 pm

Would you have prefered that I said "negligable sense" rather than "NO sense"?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:38 pm

Of course.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:39 pm

Consider it said.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:25 pm

KitemanSA wrote:biological systems almost ALWAYS behave hormetically

I understand the model. I also understand what you're saying is hotly debated and there has never been a consensus here. The testing is inadequate and completely missing for humans. While I agree the subject needs investigation, it certainly is not settled as you suppose. And here is the problem, everyone seems to think they know without an evaluation of the evidence. Who's calling the kettle black?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:52 am

GIThruster wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:biological systems almost ALWAYS behave hormetically
I understand the model. I also understand what you're saying is hotly debated and there has never been a consensus here. The testing is inadequate and completely missing for humans. While I agree the subject needs investigation, it certainly is not settled as you suppose. And here is the problem, everyone seems to think they know without an evaluation of the evidence. Who's calling the kettle black?

The data are available in droves, but those who wish to maintain the nonsense refuse to see it.

If the linear-thru-zero model were true, the farmers in Wisconsin would be dying of cancer at a substantially higher rate than farmers in Iowa. They aren't. Indeed, despite that MUCH higher radon concentrations that result from building on good ol Wisconsin granite, they actually have a LOWER rate, all else being equal.

If LTZ were correct, folks in Guarapari Brazil would have 30times the cancer rate of the US. They don't. Lots of data. Most, if not all, supports hormesis; or at least a "not thru zero" form of curve.