Iatrogenic Cancer from X-Rays/FWD 's

[Guest guest]

>For 20 years or more, Gofman has been publishing studies of the

>hazards of low-level radiation. His latest book fills 700 pages

>addressing this hypothesis: " Medical radiation is a highly

>important cause (probably the principle cause) of cancer

>mortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century. " [9]

People need to learn how to detoxify the body.

This is, hands down, the most important health dilemma today.

Be well,

[Guest guest]

Personally,

I think that modern medicine intentionally causes cancer. It has been known for many years that X-rays cause cancer, so a feeble attempt is publicly made to reduce dosages enough to allow them to continue doing what they do. Are diagnostic X-rays needed? Yes. Need they be dangerous? Not in the least. Any idiot MD knows a half dozen ways to scavange free radicals from ionizing radiation. But by saving you the $2 you'd spend for prophylaxis, they, if lucky, can harvest $200,000 from you down the road. Nothing personal -- just business.

=======================Electronic Edition========================. .. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #692 .. ---April 13, 2000--- .. HEADLINES: .. THE MAJOR CAUSE OF CANCER--PART 2 .. ========== .. Environmental Research Foundation .. P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403 .. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@... .. ========== .. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .. info@... with the single word HELP in the message. .. Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. .. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .. listserv@... with the words .. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. .. The newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .. to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an .. E-mail message to info@.... .=================================================================THE MAJOR CAUSE OF CANCER--PART 2After x-rays were discovered in 1896, medical doctors immediatelysaw the potential benefits and began experimenting with The Rayusing home-made equipment. (See REHW #691.) Just 3 weeks afterthe discovery of x-rays was announced, the first of manyexperimenters complained that their hands had received painfulx-ray burns.In addition to x-rays, by 1910 the medical community was usingradioactive radium extensively for therapy. Radium was also usedindustrially, to make glow-in-the-dark watch dials, dolls' eyes,fish bait, gun sights and other items. However, in the mid-1920sit became clear that many young women painting radium onto watchdials were dying. Their employer, U.S. Radium in West Orange,N.J., insisted the young women were dying because of poorpersonal hygiene, but studies of the workplace concluded in 1924and 1925 that all workers were being exposed to excessiveradiation. Thus humans learned by trial and error that alpha andgamma radiation from radium can be extremely dangerous even insmall quantities.On December 2, 1942, the first human-created nuclear reactorbegan operating in a secret laboratory beneath the bleachers atStagg Field, University of Chicago. The purpose of this reactorwas, first, to demonstrate that nuclear fission could be achieved(and controlled) and, second, to manufacture plutonium for abomb. Dr. Arthur Compton headed this "Manhattan Project," thecode name for the U.S. effort to make an A-bomb.At that time, the world inventory of radium totaled about twopounds. The nuclear reactors built in Chicago, then in Clinton,Tennessee and Hanford, Washington would hold inventories with theradioactive equivalent of thousands of tons of radium. Many ofthe radioactive elements in these nuclear reactors were new, withunknown characteristics. Arthur Compton and his colleaguesinsisted that safety standards had to be developed to protectworkers from the harms of radiation.Early in 1943, Compton hired a radiologist, a chemist and threephysicists to set radiation safety standards and to developmeasuring equipment to assure that the standards were met. These5 scientists were called "health physicists" meaning physicistsconcerned about health. To this day, scientists studying thehealth effects of radiation call themselves health physicists.X-ray specialists are called radiologists.In September 1943, the initial group of health physicists movedto Clinton, Tennessee where an enormous industrial facility wasbeing built to process uranium; this became known as the OakRidge National Laboratory (ORNL). In 1944, one of the originalfive health physicists -- Karl Z. -- was named director ofthe Health Physics Division at Oak Ridge, a position he held for29 years until 1972 when he reached retirement age.[1,pg.33] played a central role in the development of the healthphysics profession, and in setting radiation standardsworld-wide. The Health Physics Society was organized in 1955 with as its president pro tem; he then served as the society'sfirst elected president in 1956-57. From 1955 to 1977 served as editor-in-chief of the society's professional journal,HEALTH PHYSICS. In 1966 an International Radiation ProtectionAssociation was established, representing professionals in 30countries, and Karl was elected its first president.Most radiation standards are set by the International Commissionon Radiological Protection (ICRP), which in 1950 grew out of anearlier standards-setting group, the International X-ray andRadium Protection Committee. Karl served as one of theICRP's 13 members from 1950 to 1971, and during that time hechaired the ICRP's committee on internal doses, setting radiationstandards which were then adopted world-wide. It seems clear whyKarl is often described as "the father of health physics."In recent years, Karl has described and criticized thework of the ICRP. says the ICRP has suffered from twomajor blind spots: the Committee has never focused on harm to thepublic from excessive exposure to medical x-rays, and by themid-1960s, the ICRP began setting standards for radioactivitythat protected the nuclear industry rather than the public, says.According to (who is still an emeritus member of theICRP), the ICRP began ignoring serious radiation hazards in theearly 1960s. He writes, "The period of atmospheric testing ofnuclear weapons by the United States, the United Kingdom, Franceand the U.S.S.R is a sad page in the history of civilized man.Without question, it was the cause of hundreds of thousands ofcancer deaths. Yet there was complete silence on the part of theICRP. During these years (1960-1965), most members of the ICRPeither worked directly with the nuclear weapons industry orindirectly received most of their funding for their research fromthis industry. Perhaps they were reluctant to bite the hand thatfeeds them?"[2]In the 1970s, the situation grew worse after a series of studiesrevealed that radiation was even more dangerous than previouslybelieved. In 1974, Baruch Modan showed that a woman's chances ofbreast cancer were increased by x-ray doses as low as 1.6 rem.[3]In 1977 Mancuso and others reported that workers at theHanford plutonium facility were dying of cancers from radiationdoses as low as 3 rem accumulated over many years.[4] (The workersafety standard at the time was 5 rem per year.) Karl saysthese studies threw the nuclear industry into a panic: "Concernedthat its very existence was threatened if the public believedthat there was an increased risk of cancer at these low levels ofexposure, the nuclear-industrial complex determined that it wouldrespond vigorously to all challengers," reports in hisautobiography.[1,pg.112] As a result, believes,"...[H]ealth physics in recent decades has sacrificed itsintegrity. Certainly there remain some true professionals whowill not shade the truth to appease their employers, but they arein the minority," said in 1999.[1,pg.113]The ICRP turned a blind eye to other problems affecting publichealth -- excessive exposures from medical and dental x-rays.Early in the 1950s, a series of studies had shown that x-rayswere more dangerous than previously known. In 1950, H.C. Marchshowed that radiologists were nine times as likely as otherphysicians to die of leukemia.[5] In 1956, Alice showedthat a single x-ray of a fetus in the womb would double thelikelihood of childhood leukemia.[6]In his 1999 autobiography, describes the ICRP's failure toconcern itself with excessive and unnecessary x-ray exposuresfrom diagnostic procedures:"...t was like running into a brick wall every time I raisedthe question of excessive and unnecessary x-ray diagnosticexposures," wrote in 1994.[2] "I soon became convincedthat the subject of excessive medical exposure was a no, no withICRP because ICRP was founded under the auspices of theInternational Congress of Radiology (ICR) and radiologists didnot want any restraints or interference in their use ofdiagnostic x-rays. I had the uncomfortable feeling that there wasa serious conflict of interest with ICR sponsorship of ICRP....Conflict of interest seems to be a contagious and virulentdisease."In the mid-1960s, 's division of the Oak Ridge Laboratorystudied the x-ray doses being received by U.S. children as aresult of a mass chest x-ray program. Starting in the 1950s,portable x-ray machines in special trucks were brought to schoolsand hundreds of thousands of U.S. children were given chestx-rays. The Oak Ridge study found that each of these children wasreceiving an x-ray dose of 2 to 3 rem; knew this wasexcessive because workers at the Oak Ridge Laboratory weregetting a dose of only 0.015 rem from a chest x-ray. In otherwords, children were getting a dose of x-rays 130 to 200 times ashigh as the dose needed to produce an adequate x-ray film -- notto mention that most of the children did not need a chest x-rayat all. (The mass x-raying of U.S. children was stopped by acampaign led by , lie Bertell, Irwin Bross andothers.)[2]In the 1940s and 1950s, many shoe stores installed fluoroscopic(x-ray) shoe-fitting machines. By 1949 a study had shown thatshoe-fitting machines were giving children high doses ofradiation. Again, the ICRP showed no interest in the subject. and his colleagues calculated that medical x-raysaccounted for 90% of all radiation from human-createdsources.[7,8] showed in 1963 that the average U.S. citizenwas receiving each year about as much radiation from medicalx-rays as from natural background sources. In other words, theuse of medical x-rays was doubling the average person's exposureto radiation in the U.S. 's point was that the samebenefits could be achieved at much lower doses by usingup-to-date equipment and techniques. The medical community, forthe most part, turned a deaf ear.For many years, and others wrote about the hazards ofexcessive and unnecessary radiation exposures from medicine anddentistry -- an effort he describes as "twenty years offrustrating failures." In his autobiography (p. 121), saysit was "a highlight of my life's work" when President Lyndon signed Public Law 90-602, the "Radiation Control forHealth and Safety Act of 1968" which set minimum federalstandards for x-ray equipment. (See www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/-summary.html.) However, the law can do nothing to curbunnecessary and excessive x-ray exposures, which still occurroutinely.For the past 20 years, another important scientist concernedabout excessive exposure to x-rays has been Dr. Gofman. Inhis autobiography, describes Gofman this way:"... Gofman, a scientist who [holds] degrees in bothchemistry and medicine. Along with Glenn Seaborg, Gofmanco-discovered uranium-233, and he also was the first one toisolate plutonium. In spite of these achievements, Gofman has yetto receive the recognition due him; in my opinion, he is one ofthe leading scientists of the twentieth century," writes.For 20 years or more, Gofman has been publishing studies of thehazards of low-level radiation. His latest book fills 700 pagesaddressing this hypothesis: "Medical radiation is a highlyimportant cause (probably the principle cause) of cancermortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century."[9]In other words, Gofman believes that medical x-rays are the majorcause of cancer (including breast cancer) and heart disease inthe U.S. Gofman's work is careful, thorough, and clearly-written,so most of the health physicists of this world probably cannot beexpected to take it lying down. More next week.==============[1] Karl Z. and Ken M. , THE ANGRY GENIE; ONEMAN'S WALK THROUGH THE NUCLEAR AGE (Norman, OK: University ofOklahoma Press, 1999). ISBN 0-8061-3122-5.[2] Karl Z. , "Changes in International RadiationProtection Standards," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINEVol. 25 (1994), pgs. 301-307.[3] Baruch Modan and others, "Radiation-Induced Head and NeckTumors," LANCET (Feb. 23, 1974), pgs. 277-279.[4] F. Mancuso and others, "Radiation Exposures of HanfordWorkers Dying from Cancer and Other Causes," HEALTH PHYSICS Vol.33 (November 1977), pgs. 369-385.[5] H.C. March, "Leukemia in radiologists in a twenty yearperiod," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE Vol. 220 (1950),pgs. 282-286.[6] Alice and others, "Preliminary Communication:Malignant disease in childhood and diagnostic radiation inutero," LANCET Vol. 2 (1956), pgs. 447-448.[7] Karl Z. , "Medical X-Ray Exposures," INDUSTRIAL HYGIENEJOURNAL (November/December, 1963), pgs. 588-599.[8] Karl Z. , "You can drastically cut X-ray exposure belowtoday's levels," CONSULTANT (March/April, 1970), pg. 16.[9] Gofman, RADIATION FROM MEDICAL PROCEDURES IN THEPATHOGENESIS OF CANCER AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE (San Francisco:Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1999). ISBN 0-932682-98-7.$27.00; telephone (415) 776-8299. E-mail crnl123@....Descriptor terms: radiation; x-rays; cancer; karl z. morgan; johngofman; heart disease;################################################################ NOTICEIn accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material isdistributed without profit to those who have expressed a priorinterest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronicversion of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of chargeeven though it costs the organization considerable time and moneyto produce it. We would like to continue to provide this servicefree. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please sendyour tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental ResearchFoundation, P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403-7036. Please donot send credit card information via E-mail. For furtherinformation about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. -- Montague, Editor################################################################

[Guest guest]

VGammill:

How come you fail to mention all of the x-rays taken by chiropractors

all over the country, including ones used simply for " screening " ? Often

these x-rays are full spinal and amount to large doses of radiation to

the chest (including breasts). Cervical radiographs expose the thyroids

to unnecessary radiation. And for what? Diagnosing " subluxations " that

aren't identifiable on radiographs!

If you look at the risk/benefit of radiography, you'd have to say that

the MD's are being more sensible than the DC's. Yet the chiropractors

escape criticism. Strange.

Kirk Kolas, B.Sc.

Ontario Veterinary College

Class of 2002

> VGammill wrote:

>

> Personally,

> I think that modern medicine intentionally causes cancer. It has

> been known for many years that X-rays cause cancer, so a feeble

> attempt is publicly made to reduce dosages enough to allow them to

> continue doing what they do. Are diagnostic X-rays needed? Yes.

> Need they be dangerous? Not in the least. Any idiot MD knows a half

> dozen ways to scavange free radicals from ionizing radiation. But by

> saving you the $2 you'd spend for prophylaxis, they, if lucky, can

> harvest $200,000 from you down the road. Nothing personal -- just

> business.

>

>

>

> =======================Electronic Edition========================

> . .

> . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #692 .

> . ---April 13, 2000--- .

> . HEADLINES: .

> . THE MAJOR CAUSE OF CANCER--PART 2 .

> . ========== .

> . Environmental Research Foundation .

> . P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403 .

> . Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@... .

> . ========== .

> . All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .

> . info@... with the single word HELP in the message. .

> . Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. .

> . To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .

> . listserv@... with the words .

> . SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. .

> . The newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .

> . to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an .

> . E-mail message to info@.... .

> =================================================================

>

> THE MAJOR CAUSE OF CANCER--PART 2

>

> After x-rays were discovered in 1896, medical doctors immediately

> saw the potential benefits and began experimenting with The Ray

> using home-made equipment. (See REHW #691.) Just 3 weeks after

> the discovery of x-rays was announced, the first of many

> experimenters complained that their hands had received painful

> x-ray burns.

>

> In addition to x-rays, by 1910 the medical community was using

> radioactive radium extensively for therapy. Radium was also used

> industrially, to make glow-in-the-dark watch dials, dolls' eyes,

> fish bait, gun sights and other items. However, in the mid-1920s

> it became clear that many young women painting radium onto watch

> dials were dying. Their employer, U.S. Radium in West Orange,

> N.J., insisted the young women were dying because of poor

> personal hygiene, but studies of the workplace concluded in 1924

> and 1925 that all workers were being exposed to excessive

> radiation. Thus humans learned by trial and error that alpha and

> gamma radiation from radium can be extremely dangerous even in

> small quantities.

>

> On December 2, 1942, the first human-created nuclear reactor

> began operating in a secret laboratory beneath the bleachers at

> Stagg Field, University of Chicago. The purpose of this reactor

> was, first, to demonstrate that nuclear fission could be achieved

> (and controlled) and, second, to manufacture plutonium for a

> bomb. Dr. Arthur Compton headed this " Manhattan Project, " the

> code name for the U.S. effort to make an A-bomb.

>

> At that time, the world inventory of radium totaled about two

> pounds. The nuclear reactors built in Chicago, then in Clinton,

> Tennessee and Hanford, Washington would hold inventories with the

> radioactive equivalent of thousands of tons of radium. Many of

> the radioactive elements in these nuclear reactors were new, with

> unknown characteristics. Arthur Compton and his colleagues

> insisted that safety standards had to be developed to protect

> workers from the harms of radiation.

>

> Early in 1943, Compton hired a radiologist, a chemist and three

> physicists to set radiation safety standards and to develop

> measuring equipment to assure that the standards were met. These

> 5 scientists were called " health physicists " meaning physicists

> concerned about health. To this day, scientists studying the

> health effects of radiation call themselves health physicists.

> X-ray specialists are called radiologists.

>

> In September 1943, the initial group of health physicists moved

> to Clinton, Tennessee where an enormous industrial facility was

> being built to process uranium; this became known as the Oak

> Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). In 1944, one of the original

> five health physicists -- Karl Z. -- was named director of

> the Health Physics Division at Oak Ridge, a position he held for

> 29 years until 1972 when he reached retirement age.[1,pg.33]

>

> played a central role in the development of the health

> physics profession, and in setting radiation standards

> world-wide. The Health Physics Society was organized in 1955 with

> as its president pro tem; he then served as the society's

> first elected president in 1956-57. From 1955 to 1977

> served as editor-in-chief of the society's professional journal,

> HEALTH PHYSICS. In 1966 an International Radiation Protection

> Association was established, representing professionals in 30

> countries, and Karl was elected its first president.

>

> Most radiation standards are set by the International Commission

> on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which in 1950 grew out of an

> earlier standards-setting group, the International X-ray and

> Radium Protection Committee. Karl served as one of the

> ICRP's 13 members from 1950 to 1971, and during that time he

> chaired the ICRP's committee on internal doses, setting radiation

> standards which were then adopted world-wide. It seems clear why

> Karl is often described as " the father of health physics. "

>

> In recent years, Karl has described and criticized the

> work of the ICRP. says the ICRP has suffered from two

> major blind spots: the Committee has never focused on harm to the

> public from excessive exposure to medical x-rays, and by the

> mid-1960s, the ICRP began setting standards for radioactivity

> that protected the nuclear industry rather than the public,

> says.

>

> According to (who is still an emeritus member of the

> ICRP), the ICRP began ignoring serious radiation hazards in the

> early 1960s. He writes, " The period of atmospheric testing of

> nuclear weapons by the United States, the United Kingdom, France

> and the U.S.S.R is a sad page in the history of civilized man.

> Without question, it was the cause of hundreds of thousands of

> cancer deaths. Yet there was complete silence on the part of the

> ICRP. During these years (1960-1965), most members of the ICRP

> either worked directly with the nuclear weapons industry or

> indirectly received most of their funding for their research from

> this industry. Perhaps they were reluctant to bite the hand that

> feeds them? " [2]

>

> In the 1970s, the situation grew worse after a series of studies

> revealed that radiation was even more dangerous than previously

> believed. In 1974, Baruch Modan showed that a woman's chances of

> breast cancer were increased by x-ray doses as low as 1.6 rem.[3]

> In 1977 Mancuso and others reported that workers at the

> Hanford plutonium facility were dying of cancers from radiation

> doses as low as 3 rem accumulated over many years.[4] (The worker

> safety standard at the time was 5 rem per year.) Karl says

> these studies threw the nuclear industry into a panic: " Concerned

> that its very existence was threatened if the public believed

> that there was an increased risk of cancer at these low levels of

> exposure, the nuclear-industrial complex determined that it would

> respond vigorously to all challengers, " reports in his

> autobiography.[1,pg.112] As a result, believes,

> " ...[H]ealth physics in recent decades has sacrificed its

> integrity. Certainly there remain some true professionals who

> will not shade the truth to appease their employers, but they are

> in the minority, " said in 1999.[1,pg.113]

>

> The ICRP turned a blind eye to other problems affecting public

> health -- excessive exposures from medical and dental x-rays.

> Early in the 1950s, a series of studies had shown that x-rays

> were more dangerous than previously known. In 1950, H.C. March

> showed that radiologists were nine times as likely as other

> physicians to die of leukemia.[5] In 1956, Alice showed

> that a single x-ray of a fetus in the womb would double the

> likelihood of childhood leukemia.[6]

>

> In his 1999 autobiography, describes the ICRP's failure to

> concern itself with excessive and unnecessary x-ray exposures

> from diagnostic procedures:

>

> " ...t was like running into a brick wall every time I raised

> the question of excessive and unnecessary x-ray diagnostic

> exposures, " wrote in 1994.[2] " I soon became convinced

> that the subject of excessive medical exposure was a no, no with

> ICRP because ICRP was founded under the auspices of the

> International Congress of Radiology (ICR) and radiologists did

> not want any restraints or interference in their use of

> diagnostic x-rays. I had the uncomfortable feeling that there was

> a serious conflict of interest with ICR sponsorship of ICRP....

> Conflict of interest seems to be a contagious and virulent

> disease. "

>

> In the mid-1960s, 's division of the Oak Ridge Laboratory

> studied the x-ray doses being received by U.S. children as a

> result of a mass chest x-ray program. Starting in the 1950s,

> portable x-ray machines in special trucks were brought to schools

> and hundreds of thousands of U.S. children were given chest

> x-rays. The Oak Ridge study found that each of these children was

> receiving an x-ray dose of 2 to 3 rem; knew this was

> excessive because workers at the Oak Ridge Laboratory were

> getting a dose of only 0.015 rem from a chest x-ray. In other

> words, children were getting a dose of x-rays 130 to 200 times as

> high as the dose needed to produce an adequate x-ray film -- not

> to mention that most of the children did not need a chest x-ray

> at all. (The mass x-raying of U.S. children was stopped by a

> campaign led by , lie Bertell, Irwin Bross and

> others.)[2]

>

> In the 1940s and 1950s, many shoe stores installed fluoroscopic

> (x-ray) shoe-fitting machines. By 1949 a study had shown that

> shoe-fitting machines were giving children high doses of

> radiation. Again, the ICRP showed no interest in the subject.

>

> and his colleagues calculated that medical x-rays

> accounted for 90% of all radiation from human-created

> sources.[7,8] showed in 1963 that the average U.S. citizen

> was receiving each year about as much radiation from medical

> x-rays as from natural background sources. In other words, the

> use of medical x-rays was doubling the average person's exposure

> to radiation in the U.S. 's point was that the same

> benefits could be achieved at much lower doses by using

> up-to-date equipment and techniques. The medical community, for

> the most part, turned a deaf ear.

>

> For many years, and others wrote about the hazards of

> excessive and unnecessary radiation exposures from medicine and

> dentistry -- an effort he describes as " twenty years of

> frustrating failures. " In his autobiography (p. 121), says

> it was " a highlight of my life's work " when President Lyndon

> signed Public Law 90-602, the " Radiation Control for

> Health and Safety Act of 1968 " which set minimum federal

> standards for x-ray equipment. (See www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/-

> summary.html.) However, the law can do nothing to curb

> unnecessary and excessive x-ray exposures, which still occur

> routinely.

>

> For the past 20 years, another important scientist concerned

> about excessive exposure to x-rays has been Dr. Gofman. In

> his autobiography, describes Gofman this way:

>

> " ... Gofman, a scientist who [holds] degrees in both

> chemistry and medicine. Along with Glenn Seaborg, Gofman

> co-discovered uranium-233, and he also was the first one to

> isolate plutonium. In spite of these achievements, Gofman has yet

> to receive the recognition due him; in my opinion, he is one of

> the leading scientists of the twentieth century, " writes.

>

> For 20 years or more, Gofman has been publishing studies of the

> hazards of low-level radiation. His latest book fills 700 pages

> addressing this hypothesis: " Medical radiation is a highly

> important cause (probably the principle cause) of cancer

> mortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century. " [9]

> In other words, Gofman believes that medical x-rays are the major

> cause of cancer (including breast cancer) and heart disease in

> the U.S. Gofman's work is careful, thorough, and clearly-written,

> so most of the health physicists of this world probably cannot be

> expected to take it lying down. More next week.

> ==============

>

> [1] Karl Z. and Ken M. , THE ANGRY GENIE; ONE

> MAN'S WALK THROUGH THE NUCLEAR AGE (Norman, OK: University of

> Oklahoma Press, 1999). ISBN 0-8061-3122-5.

>

> [2] Karl Z. , " Changes in International Radiation

> Protection Standards, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE

> Vol. 25 (1994), pgs. 301-307.

>

> [3] Baruch Modan and others, " Radiation-Induced Head and Neck

> Tumors, " LANCET (Feb. 23, 1974), pgs. 277-279.

>

> [4] F. Mancuso and others, " Radiation Exposures of Hanford

> Workers Dying from Cancer and Other Causes, " HEALTH PHYSICS Vol.

> 33 (November 1977), pgs. 369-385.

>

> [5] H.C. March, " Leukemia in radiologists in a twenty year

> period, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE Vol. 220 (1950),

> pgs. 282-286.

>

> [6] Alice and others, " Preliminary Communication:

> Malignant disease in childhood and diagnostic radiation in

> utero, " LANCET Vol. 2 (1956), pgs. 447-448.

>

> [7] Karl Z. , " Medical X-Ray Exposures, " INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE

> JOURNAL (November/December, 1963), pgs. 588-599.

>

> [8] Karl Z. , " You can drastically cut X-ray exposure below

> today's levels, " CONSULTANT (March/April, 1970), pg. 16.

>

> [9] Gofman, RADIATION FROM MEDICAL PROCEDURES IN THE

> PATHOGENESIS OF CANCER AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE (San Francisco:

> Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1999). ISBN 0-932682-98-7.

> $27.00; telephone (415) 776-8299. E-mail crnl123@....

>

> Descriptor terms: radiation; x-rays; cancer; karl z. morgan; john

> gofman; heart disease;

>

> ################################################################

> NOTICE

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is

> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.

> Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic

> version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge

> even though it costs the organization considerable time and money

> to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service

> free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution

> (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send

> your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research

> Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, polis, MD 21403-7036. Please do

> not send credit card information via E-mail. For further

> information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.

> by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at

> (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.

> -- Montague, Editor

> ################################################################

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> -List Archives:

> /archives.cgi/

> Web Sites:

> http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

> http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

> http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

> By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

> yourself!

>

> To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

> To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

> To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

> To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist