Progressive Calendar 01.04.08
From: David Shove (shove001tc.umn.edu)
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 02:51:56 -0800 (PST)
              P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R    01.04.08

1. Ffunch             1.04 11:30am
2. RNC medic training 1.04 5pm
3. Deaf GLBT reader   1.04 7pm
4. Moyers/Dennis/Paul 1.04 9pm

5. GP membership meet 1.05 9am
6. Pax Christi        1.05 9am
7. HomelessVets/peace 1.05 10am
8. NWN4P Minnetonka   1.05 11am
9. New Hope vigil     1.05 1pm
10. Iraq 5yrs plan    1.05 1pm
11. Haiti celebration 1.05 5pm
12. GP prez forum     1.05 5pm
13. NativeAm piano    1.05 7:30pm
14. US revolution?/TV 1.05 9pm

15. Gardner/Arora - Dr Strangelove's nemesis
16. Jeanne Weigum - Wildlife drama in St Paul [recipe for mouse mousse]
17. ed            - Bumpersticker #2

--------1 of 17--------

From: David Shove <shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Ffunch 1.04 11:30am

Meet the FFUNCH BUNCH!
11:30am-1pm
First Friday Lunch (FFUNCH) for Greens/progressives.

Informal political talk and hanging out.

Day By Day Cafe 477 W 7th Av St Paul.
Meet in the private room (holds 12+).

Day By Day has soups, salads, sandwiches, and dangerous apple pie; is
close to downtown St Paul & on major bus lines


--------2 of 17--------

From: greenpartymike <ollamhfaery [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: RNC medic training 1.04 5pm

Please feel free to pass on. If you do not have any medical experience, no
problem. We will be training people. - Michael Cavlan nurse (612)327-6902

A couple folks interested in being involved in with the medics for the RNC
are getting together, Friday, January 4 at 5PM at Blue Moon Cafe on Lake
St.


--------3 of 17--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: Deaf GLBT reader 1.04 7pm

Friday January 4th, 2008   7-9 p.m.
The Loft Literary Center | Suite 200, Open Book | 1011 Washington Ave.
S. | Minneapolis | MN | 55415

Join us as we celebrate the publication of Eyes of Desire 2: A Deaf GLBT
Reader with a panel discussion:  "What does it mean to be a part of the
Deaf GLBT community?"

Ten Minnesotan writers, both Deaf and hearing, all featured in the new
anthology Eyes of Desire 2: A Deaf GLBT Reader will share their
experiences with the Deaf gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT)
community. They include Karen Conway, Jessica Eggert, Jessalyn Frank, C J
Hetle, Elise Knopf, John Kowalczyk, Michael La Rocca, Barry R. Segal,
Canae Weiss, and Patricia White. The editor, Raymond Luczak, will moderate
the lively discussion, which will be ASL and voice-interpreted for all.
The event will also have CART captioning for those who are late-deafened
and hard-of-hearing.

Participants and audience members will receive .2 CEUs from RID at the
beginning level.


--------4 of 17--------

From: Joan Malerich <joanmdm [at] iphouse.com>
Subject: Moyers/Kucinich/Paul 1.04 9pm

Reminder: The PBS Bill Moyers Journal will be interviewing the two
shut-up, shut-out candidates, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, on Friday,
Jan 4, 2008.


--------5 of 17--------

From: Wyn Douglas <wyn_douglas [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: GP membership meet 1.05 9am

GPMN Winter Membership Meeting

Saturday Jan 5, 2008, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm
Hamline University, 1536 Hewitt Ave, Saint Paul, MN 55104,
651-523-2800; http://www.hamline.edu/

Meet in the Klas Center Bldg, 1537 Taylor Ave, in the Kay Fredericks
Ballroom.
Parking is available in all lots, (except Lot H).
Some workshops @ 10am & 11am will be in another building (the Giddens
Learning Center).

9:00 am Registration

9:30 am Welcome

10:00 am Workshops:
- Delivering a Political Message" & "Corporations, Democracy and a
Sustainable Future (in KLAS)
- Knee Deep Organizing in the GPMN" & "MN Diversity Open Forum (in
Giddens Learning Center)

11:00 am Workshops:
- The Great Law of Peace (in KLAS)
- Feminism: a Discussion Beyond Economics (in KLAS)
- How to Convene a Caucus (in Giddens Learning Center)
- GPMN Candidate Training (in Giddens Learning Center)

12:00 pm Potluck Lunch
PLEASE BRING A DISH TO PASS & your own plate, silverware, cup & bag to
take your dishes home in.

1:00pm Workshops:
- Hate Crimes in MN (in KLAS Center)
- Planning to Thrive after Oil (in KLAS Center)
- Tapping into the GPMN's Web Presence (in KLAS Center)

2:00 pm GPUS election of 3 delegates

3:00 pm Information from MN GPUS delegates

3:30 pm Closing & Clean-up


--------6 of 17--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Pax Christi 1.05 9am

1/5 (9 am registration) to 1/6 (11 am closing), Pax Christi Twin Cities
annual retreat, with Nonviolent Peaceforce director Mel Duncan, St Paul's
Monastery Benedictine Center, 2675 E Larpenteur Ave, Maplewood.
lynncibuzar [at] yahoo.com or 651-699-8565 and leave message.


--------7 of 17--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Homeless vets/peace 1.05 10am

Saturday, 1/5, 10 to 11:30 am, meeting of Homeless Veterans for Peace,
Peacehouse, 510 E Franklin, Mpls.  Bob 612-789-9020.


--------8 of 17--------

From: Carole Rydberg <carydberg [at] comcast.net>
Subject: NWN4P Minnetonka 1.05 11am

NWN4P-Minnetonka demonstration- Every Saturday, 11 AM to noon, at Hwy. 7
and 101.  Park in the Target Greatland lot; meet near the fountain. We
will walk along the public sidewalk. Signs available.


--------9 of 17--------

From: Carole Rydberg <carydberg [at] comcast.net>
Subject: New Hope vigil 1.05 1pm

Saturday, 1-2PM - Weekly NWN4P vigil for peace in New Hope at the corner
of 42nd (Co. Rd. 9) and Winnetka Ave. N.  We usually park in the
Walgreen's lot or near McDonald's. You may use one of our signs or bring
your own. All welcome. Carole-763-546-5368.


--------10 of 17--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Iraq 5yrs plan 1.05 1pm

Saturday, 1/5, 1 pm, planning meeting to mark the 5th anniversary of the
U.S. war against Iraq (3/19/03), Mayday Books, 301 Cedar Ave S, Mpls.


--------11 of 17--------

From: biego001 [at] umn.edu
Subject: Haiti celebration 1.05 5pm

The Haiti Justice Committee invites one and all to a celebration
commemorating Haitian Independence; please join us at MayDay bookstore
(301 Cedar Ave.,Mpls.) Sat. January 5th, 5-8pm. There will be food, music,
good company and political talk. Bring something to share - food,
beverage, music, poetry, a drum, your open heart!


--------12 of 17--------

From: David Strand <mncivil [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: GP prez forum 1.05 5pm

We are pleased to invite you to join the Green Party of Minnesota this
Saturday Jan. 5th for the Green Party Presidential Forum and Campaign
Fair.  Candidates Kat Swift and Jesse Johnson are confirmed attendees as
of this writing (there may be more candidates) and there will be materials
available on all 6 of the offical Green Party Presidential Candidates,
Draft Candidates and their campaigns.  For more on the Candidates and
Draft Candidates please visit the site of the GPUS Presidential Campaign
Support Committee at http://www.gp.org/committees/pcsc/index.shtml

The forum and fair are being held from 5pm to 7pm in the event space
behind the curtains in the northeast corner of the Midtown Global Market
at 920 E. Lake Street in Minneapolis.  Parking in the ramp next to the
market on 10th Avenue is free for three hours with any purchase in the
market.  Don't forget to get your parking pass stamped if you are driving!

If you are biking, the Midtown Global Market is just off the Midtown
Greenway.  If you are busing, the Midtown Global Market is reachable by
bus routes 5, 39 & 21 as well as others very closeby.

We encourage folks to buy their dinner or a snack or beverages to eat and
drink during the candidate and campaign presentations and question and
answer period and support the many small local community businesses which
comprise the global market by eating some of their great and unique food
offerrings.

Organic and local meats, fruits, and other items are available.

Many of you may know the Midtown Global Market as the old Sears building
on Lake Street in South Minneapolis.  For more on the market and
directions please visit http://www.midtownglobalmarket.org/

There is no charge for attending but please be prepared to contribute to
candidates or campaigns if you so feel inclined.  Our guests will need to
raise some additional funds to cover their travel expenses.

Note: There is no flyering of the market space allowed outside the event
space as requested by the nonprofit which runs the Global Market.  Thanks
for your cooperation with respecting this request.

Please email davidstrand [at] mngreens.org if you are in need of ASL services
or if you can provide ASL services or other language translation on an as
needed basis.


--------13 of 17--------

From: Diane J. Peterson <birch7 [at] comcast.net>
Subject: NativeAm piano 1.05 7:30pm

The evening of Jan. 5 (following our membership meeting), classical music
fans can attend the concert of a Native American pianist performing in
Minneapolis.  He is performing as a benefit for both the Two Spirit Press
Room and for the 20th Anniversary International Two Spirit Gathering.  Two
Spirit is a Native term for gay/bisexual people.  I received notice about
this concert from Richard LaFortune, who was a grand marshall of the Gay
Pride Parade in Minneapolis, and is involved in the Two Spirit Press Room.
--

The Twin Cities debut of
Tim Hays (HoCak)
Saturday, Jan. 5
7:30 pm
Perfoming works of reknowned Quawpaw/Cherokee composer Louis Ballard,
    plus Bach, Scarlatti, Bartok, Debussy.
All God's Children Metropolitan Community Church (612-824-2673)
3100 Park Avenue South
Minneapolis 55407

Post concert dialogue with the artist moderated by the First Nations
Composer Initiative.
Reception with light refreshments.
Free will donation of $10 is suggested; but everyone will be admitted

Contact:
Richard LaFortune
612-267-1682
twospiritpressroom [at] yahoo.com


--------14 of 17--------

From: Eric Angell <eric-angell [at] riseup.net>
Subject: US revolution?/CTV 1.05 9pm

Most excellent Minneapolis Television Network (MTN 17) viewers:

"Our World In Depth" cablecasts on MTN Channel 17 on Saturdays at 9pm and
Tuesdays at 8am.  Households with basic cable may watch.

Sat, 1/5/2008 9pm and Tues, 1/8/2008 8am  "Revolution in the US? A
View from Venezuela"  Interview of August Nimtz, U of M professor recently
returned from Venezuela.  Hosted by Karen Redleaf.


--------15 of 17--------

John Gofman vs. the Nuclear Cowboys
Dr. Strangelove's Nemesis
By FRED GARDNER and SHOBHIT ARORA
CounterPunch
January 2, 2008

Dr. John Gofman left us in 2007 at the age of 88. Edward Teller called him
"the enemy within" the nuclear research establishment because Gofman
warned the public about the dangers inherent even in peaceful uses.
(Teller was proud of his own sobriquet, "father of the H-bomb." Peter
Sellers used Teller as a model when he played Dr. Strangelove in Stanley
Kubrick's great black comedy.)

In the early 1940s, while getting his PhD in physics at UC Berkeley,
Gofman co-discovered Uranium 233 and demonstrated its slow and fast
neutron fissionability. At the request of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Gofman
and Robert Connick produced plutonium for the Manhattan Project. (Not even
a quarter-milligram existed at the time of Oppie's request.)

After the war Gofman got his MD from UCSF and began research that linked
heart disease to the lipoproteins that transport cholesterol in the
bloodstream.

In 1963 the Atomic Energy Commission asked him to establish a Biomedical
Research Division at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to evaluate the health
effects of all types of nuclear radiation. Before long, however, the
nuclear establishment was ignoring his warnings about the real dangers of
low-dose ionizing radiation. Gofman returned to full-time teaching at
Berkeley, and took early retirement in 1973. This interview, which ran in
the AVA in 1994, was conducted by Shobhit Arora, a second-year medical
student, with me sitting in. We started out discussing a Wall St. Journal
item: "The White House was surprised - and chagrined - by Energy Secretary
O'Leary's comment about paying compensation to atomic-testing victims.
With a super-tight budget, the White House is now scrambling to head off a
costly new entitlement." -FG

Gofman: Secretary Hazel O'Leary is undoubtedly the first breath of fresh
air that we've seen in the atomic era. I think what she's doing is great
and I hope millions - hundreds of millions of people back her - because
she's going to face a ferocious opposition. It's going to be like a
nuclear firestorm in opposition to her, because she's doing something
constructive. I have for 25 years been an intense critic of the Department
of Energy. I say this because Hazel O'Leary stands for compassion, candor
and credibility - not because I've changed my mind about the DOE, which I
think is one of the worst organizations in the history of our government.
Unless it's cleaned out, we're going to have worse things in the future.
The human experimentation that has been done is bad. And it's good that
that's being cleared away. But for 25 years the DOE has not shown any
concern for the health of Americans. Their concern has been for the health
of the DOE. Their falsehoods concerning the hazards of ionizing radiation
have put not thousands of people at risk, not millions of people, but
billions of people.

The worst-case scenario is this. Ever since its inception, the Atomic
Energy Commission - then called ERDA, then called DOE - has had one thing
in mind. "Our program is sacrosanct." And they recognize, as I've
recognized, that their entire program will live or die based upon one
thing. If the public should come to learn the truth about ionizing
radiation, nuclear energy and the atomic energy program of DOE is going to
be dead. Because the people of this country - and other countries - are
not going to tolerate what it implies. The key thing - it's everything in
the DOE program - is: "We must prove that low doses of radiation are not
harmful..." They have been conducting a Josef Goebels propaganda war,
saying there's a safe dose when there has never been any valid evidence
for a safe dose of radiation. Yet the DOE and others continue to talk
about their "zero-risk model."

After Chernobyl, I estimated that there were going to be 475,000 fatal
cancers throughout Europe - with another 475,000 cancers that are not
fatal. That estimate was based on the dose released on the various
countries of fallout from Cesium-137. The DOE put out a report in 1987 -
and I don't think it's any credit to the University of California that
part of this report was done in the Livermore Lab, where I once worked,
and part in Davis - saying "our zero-risk model says that at these low
doses, nothing will happen, because low doses are safe."

How would a safe level of radiation come about? It could come about in
theory if the biological repair mechanisms - which exist and which will
repair DNA and chromosomes - work perfectly. Then a low dose of radiation
might be totally repaired. The problem, though, is that the repair
mechanisms don't work perfectly. There are those lesions in DNA and
chromosomes that are unrepairable. There are those where the repair
mechanisms don't get to the site and so they go unrepaired. And there are
those lesions where the repair mechanisms simply cause misrepair. We can
say that between 50 and 90 percent of the damage done by ionizing
radiation is repaired perfectly. What we are then seeing is harm done by
the residual 10 or 40 or 50 percent that is not repaired perfectly. The
evidence that the repair mechanism is not perfect is very solid today.
What we wanted to have was evidence that as you go down to very low doses
- a raed, or a tenth of a rad - is that going to produce cancer?
Determing the answer by standard epidemiological studies would take
millions of people, and we don't have that. So it creates a field day for
the DOE to say, "Well, we don't know." But I looked very carefully in 1986
for any studies that could shed light on that all-important queston. And I
presented that evidence at the American Chemical Society meeting in
Anaheim.

Q: That the lowest doses will produce cancer?

Gofman: The answer is this: ionizing radiation is not like a poison out of
a bottle where you can dilute it and dilute it. The lowest dose of
ionizing radiation is one nuclear track through one cell. You can't have a
fraction of a dose of that sort. Either a track goes through the nucleus
and affects it, or it doesn't. So I said 'What evidence do we have
concerning one, or two or three or four or six or 10 tracks.' And I came
up with nine studies of cancer being produced where we're dealing with up
to maybe eight or 10 tracks per cell. Four involved breast cancer. With
those studies, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a question of "We don't
know." The DOE has never refuted this evidence. They just ignore it,
because it's inconvenient. We can now say, there cannot be a safe dose of
radiation. There is no safe threshhold. If this truth is known, then any
permitted radiation is a permit to commit murder.

What other things does the DOE use as crutches? "Well, maybe if you give
the radiation slowly it won't hurt as much as if you give it all at once."
Now if you have one track through a cell producing cancer, what is the
meaning of slowly? You have the track or you don't. It comes in on Tuesday
or it comes in on Saturday. To talk about slow delivery of one track
through the nucleus is ludicrous. But they do it anyway.

There is a more radical fringe that says, "A little radiation is good for
you. And all this stuff about radiation causing harm is bad for society
because it's going to prevent the program we think should be instituted,
and that program is to give everybody in the country radiation every day
as a new vitamin." This program is called hormesis. "A little radiation
will give your immune system a kick and help you resist cancer and
infectious disease." The chief exponent is a man named Thomas Luckey,
formerly of the University of Missouri. He bemoans the fact that we can't
get this program into high gear.

Q: Is anybody taking him seriously?

Gofman: The idea is manifestly absurd. But that didn't prevent the DOE
from helping to sponsor a conference in 1985 in Oakland on the beneficial
effects of radiation, hormesis. And the nuclear enterprise is really at it
all the time. They had another such conference in 1987, and another in
1992.

Q: What are the implications of there being a safe dose of radiation?

Gofman: They don't have to worry about nuclear waste. NO problem - there's
a safe dose, nobody's going to get exposed to more than the safe dose. The
clean-up and disposal of waste has been estimated to be in the billions,
if they're really going to clean up Hanford and Savannah River and all the
rest. Recently, Dr. Robert Alexander in an exchange of letters in the
Health Physics Journal - he was with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and former president of the Health Physics Society - said there's no proof
that low level radiation is harmful... Anybody who gets half a rad a year
from waste disposal shouldn't be counted, they don't matter. They don't
matter for somebody who's apologizing for the nuclear industry. But they
matter! And they're going to matter in the millions, tens of millions and
hundreds of millions if, because of statements like Alexander's, it
becomes okay to give people 10 rads. You won't have to bury things in
these fancy vaults. You won't have to worry about transport. You can even
dispose of it in ordinary landfills. That will be the result. That's what
the future will be. If low doses don't matter, the workers can get more
and their families can get more by being in the vicinity. That's what we
face.

Q: What are the limits for lab technicians and other workers wearing
badges? What's the limit now?

Gofman: Five rems per year. That's going to be cut down to one or two rems
per year. By the way, medical radiation, from x-ray machines, is roughly
twice as harmful per unit dose as Hiroshima-Nagasaki radiation.

Q: Why is that?

Gofman: It's the effect of linear energy transfer. When gamma rays or
x-rays set electrons in motion, the electrons are traveling at a lower
speed than the electrons coming out of cesium-137. And as a result, when
they're traveling at a lower speed, they interact much more with each
micrometer of path they travel. Therefore the local harm is much greater.
So medical x-rays set in motion electrons that are traveling at a lower
speed and hence producing about twice the linear energy transfer, and
hence twice the biological effect. That's why alpha particles from radium
or plutonium are so much more devastating than beta rays set in motion
from x-rays. The alpha particles, with their heavy mass and plus-2 charge,
just rip through tissue so strenuosly that they don't go very far. A
deception of the crassest sort are the lectures by pro-nuclear people
showing a plutonium or radium source and putting up a piece of paper and
showing that the alpha-particle radiation on the other side is zero. "You
see, a piece of paper will stop those alpha particles, folks, there's no
problem with plutonium." Except when that alpha particle is lodged next to
an endosteal cell in the bone and producing a horrendous amount of
interaction. Or that alpha particle is lodging on the surface of the
bronchi - that's why we've got an epidemic of lung cancer among the
uranium miners! The fact that they don't travel far is because they
interact like hell!

Q: Do you think medical professionals really appreciate how much potential
there is for damage? Regardless of who you are, you go into the hospital
and you get a chest x-ray as a routine diagnostic procedure.

Gofman: I'm sad to say, I don't think 90% of doctors in this country know
a god-damned thing about ionizing radiation and its effect. Somebody
polled some pediatricians recently and said "Do you believe there's a safe
dose of radiation?" And 45% said "Yes." They weren't asked, "What papers
have you ever read on this subject that led you to conclude there's a safe
dose?" I think medical education on the hazard of radiation is atrocious.
What have they taught you in radiology?

Basically, whenever it's not necessary, don't do a radiological procedure.
But they have qualified that with the implication that most radiological
procedures really aren't that dangerous - a tenth of a rad here really
isn't too bad. It's better to get the information from a procedure than
not.

Part of that is okay. If you ask me, "Do you stand against medical
x-rays?" the answer is no. And I've written a book with Egan O'Connor on
the health effects of common exams. We take the position: if there's a
diagnostic gain for you - something that can really make a difference in
your health and your life - then don't forego the x-ray. But there's
another part of the picture. Up till recently - it may be a little better
now than it was - government studies show that most hospitals and most
offices of radiologists didn't have the foggiest notion of what dose they
were giving you for a procedure. Nor did they know that the procedure
could be accomplished with a third or a tenth of the dose. Joel Gray, a
health physicist at the Mayo Clinic, said there are places giving you 20
times the dose needed for a given picture. And, he said, "If you ask those
people and they can't answer, you can be fairly confident that they're
giving you a bigger dose than necessary." So Egan and I, inThe Health
Effects of Common Exams, took the data on what the average doses were in
the United States, versus what has been accomplished by some elegant work
in Toronto to reduce the dose to one-third of what was the average
practice in 1984, and found that about 50,000 fatal cancers per year could
be prevented. That's a million and a half in a generation! So what is this
stuff about "Most procedures don't hurt you, they're small?"

Let me say one more thing about the medical profession. It's my view that
we have a really crazy situation with respect to x-rays. You go to a
physician - your internist, or a GP, or an obstetric gynecologist, or an
orthopedic surgeon - these are the people who send you out for an x-ray.
They represent, or should, your ombudsperson. And they, not you, should
have to find out whether the facility they're sending you to sends 5 times
the dose needed, or a decent dose of radiation. But if you ask that
so-called ombudsperson, "Where you're sending me, do they know how to keep
the dose down? What dose will I get?" He'll mumble, "Don't worry about it,
no problem." That's the fault of medical education in our universities. If
we turn out physicians who don't have the attitude that they're the
ombudsman for things like that, I think they're not doing the job.

Q: A friend who had a melanoma was told there had been a 20-fold increase
in the past 50 years, but "We don't really know what's causing it." It's
as if many in the medical profession don't want to make the obvious
connection between radiation, pollution, pesticides and the cancer rates.

Gofman: The medical profession is implicated directly. I've spoken to Dr.
Andre Bruwer, who practices in Tucson. He's a first-class radiologist who
does nothing but mammography. And he said, "John, I shudder to think of
what we were doing 20 years ago." We were touting mammography when the
dose was four to five rads, and in some cases 10 rads. Now if you give
enough women four to five rads, at something of the order of a 2 percent
increase in breast-cancer rate per rad - that's what my analyses show, and
I've analyzed the world data on x-rays very carefully with respect to
breast cancer in particular - it has to be that women irradiated 15, 20
years ago got horrendous doses from mammography compared to now. And
therefore, some of the present increase in breast cancer has to be from
the radiation they got; but they don't like to talk about it.

There was a time, 20-30 years ago, when there were mobile x-ray units that
gave x-rays of the chest. They didn't give the 20 millirads [a 50th of a
rad] that is possible today. They gave about 5 rads. Children went through
those things by the thousands. And we just say "We don't know why this
cancer epidemic is taking place now." Nobody's taken account of it. It's
hard to know how many children got it and who they were and follow them
up. But you know that a certain number of people are having cancers now as
a result of what was done 15, 20 years ago.

Back in the '50s one woman brought a child in in the middle of the night
having real difficulty breathing, and a resident said, "Maybe the thymus
gland is enlarged and pressing on the trachea. Let's give this child a 100
or 150 rads of radiation in the neck." And as with many disorders, the
child got better by morning. And so this resident put two and two together
and said, "I gave the radiation, the child got better, therefore I cured
him." And so this became the rage and all kinds of hospitals were using
radiation to treat an enlarged thymus.

Q: What's the danger from an enlarged thymus?

Gofman: There have been careful studies now of these kids that had the
irradiation for enlarged thymuses - which, by the way, is no longer
believed to have been a disease that existed in the first place - and
they're having an excess of thyroid cancers, an excess of salivary gland
cancers. One hospital in Pittsburgh said "Why should we wait till these
children come into the emergency room at night with croup?" And they, for
a period of over a year, gave x-rays to every child leaving the nursery...

There is this wall that prevents us from relating past experience to the
occurence of cancer. The full effects are not known. It's not just what
the average dose was back then, some places were giving horrendous doses.
Sometimes they'd get a picture that was too faint. So they'd take another
one, with a longer exposure - when the problem was that their developing
solution was getting spent. And all they had to do was change the
developer. But instead of that they gave the person an extra x-ray with a
bigger dose.

Q: What general principles should a patient bear in mind when considering
a procedure?

Gofman: If I were a member of the public, knowing what I know: if the
establishment told me that something had a certain risk, I'd assume that
the true risk was at least 10 times worse. Part of the problem comes from
the patient. If a patient goes to a doctor - especially if he's covered by
a health plan - and the doctor doesn't give him any procedures, they feel
cheated. "You didn't even take an x-ray!" But the medical profession has
to be regarded as culpable, along with the DOE. They both have the same
conflict of interest: their work exposes people to radiation. For the DOE
there have been all kinds of people of shady character in all kinds of
government posts. But damnit, the medical profession shouldn't be shady
and corrupt. I'd like to see them really apply the Hippocratic oath to
this field.

Q: Could you describe your work regarding the retroactive tampering with
databases?

Gofman: For years I've tried to believe that what was going on in
Hiroshima-Nagasaki in what was called the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission
- subsequently renamed the Radiation Effects Research Foundation - was the
only place where we had a huge body of data that addressed the question of
what happens to people who have been exposed to varying doses. If there is
an event like Chernobyl, or Hiroshima, we have to insist on the sacred
meaning of collecting an honest database concerning what happens to people
 - A. doing the very best job of determining what dose they got, and B.
doing a follow-up study that is beyond reproach. That is an obligation to
humanity that is virtually sacred. If you do anything less than the best
in that kind of endeavor, you're a scoundrel. So all this time I wanted to
believe in the work that was being done in the Hiroshima Nagasaki
stuidies. In 1986, because of some questions about what the neutron dose
was relative to the other forms of radiation - gamma rays, primarily -
they did a revision of the doses. Now I don't have any objection to the
revision of doses, provided that you obey the cardinal rules of medical
research. The first cardinal rule of medical research is: never, but never
change the input data once you know what the follow-up shows. So because
they had this idea of changing the doses, they didn't just change the
doses, they shuffled all the people from one dose category to another,
with a new dose. So there was no continuity with everything that had been
done up to 1986.

Q: Who's 'they?'

Gofman: The Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Japan. The director
is Itsuzo Shigematsu. The associate director is a guy by the name of Jupe
Thiessen who's from the DOE. It's a DOE-sponsored endeavor - DOE and the
Japanese Ministry of Health. There couldn't be a worse set of sponsors.

Q: The Japanese have the same kind of commitment to nuclear energy?

Gofman: Absolutely. So I said, "You can't do this. You want a new dosage,
keep the new groupings and just assign the new dose and study [the
results]." I call that "constant cohort, dual dosimetry." So I wrote a
letter to Shigematsu and said "This is a violation of the cardinal rules
of research. There is a way to do this correctly, and you can keep
changing doses all your life, provided you just stick them alongside what
you've done originally." Shigematsu's reply is on my book.
[Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure, 1990] It's simple. He
said, "Trust us." Well, the reason for the cardinal rule of research is,
nobody ever has to say "Trust me." Because you set things up with
blinding, with appropriate procedures, so that your data base is
immaculate. You don't go changing things and say, "Well we did it
objectively." I said, "Report in the old way - the old dosage - and the
new way." They said, "We won't do that. But we'll consider it. And we will
give you the data in the old way for three more years." What's the shape
of the cancer curve with the latest data from Hiroshima-Nagasaki? If I use
the old data, it's like this (diagonal line). What's the shape of the
curve with their new dosimetry? It's like this (slowly rising line that
then goes up abruptly).

Q: Making it look as if the low-level of radiation is acceptable?

Gofman: Exactly. Their ultimate goal is fulfilled.

Q: How did they determine who received what dosage at the time of the
explosion? Was it based on how far away they were from ground zero?

Gofman: Distance was the biggest factor, but also whether you were
outdoors or indoors, whether you were in a concrete or wooden structure.
They tried to do a lot of that. And they shouldn't keep changing the
placement of people! You take people with cancer and say, "Well, I guess
the dose they originally got must have been a lot higher. We'll put that
person here [in this dose category] and this one there." And with that
sort of approach, you can make truth whatever you want it to be. And
there's a very important additional lesson. Humanity needs to insist on
the emaculate construction of databases concerning any accident or major
event. If a crook makes the database, Einstein will get the wrong answer
out of it. And then what happens? The Einsteins, with the best
credentials, using this lousy, fabricated, false database, put their
findings in the medical journals. And then they get into the textbooks.
And then it's taught to medical students for the next 100 years. And what
happens? Hundreds of millions of people will suffer from cancer and
genetic diseases because the answer will be wrong. The key thing is
getting an honest database.

PS 1/31/07 Bill Clinton in due course ditched O'Leary, who had resisted
power-industry pressure to privatize government labs and production
facilities. By an amazing coincidence she was shown the same door as Lanny
Guinier and Jocelyn Elders.

Fred Gardner edits O'Shaughnessy's, the journal of cannabis in clinical
practice. He can be reached at fred [at] plebesite.com


--------16 of 17--------

[This story is too good not to reprint. -ed]

From: Jeanne Weigum <jw [at] ansrmn.org>
To: St. Paul Issues Forum <stpaul-issues [at] forums.e-democracy.org>,
Subject: Re: [SPIF] Wildlife drama in St. Paul

Inspired by a mouse story, I dug up an old adventure of my own.  This took
place about 4 years ago.

Jeanne Weigum, Mousefree in Merriam Park.

-- Sometimes you have to tell on yourself. This is one of those times.

My two cats, Etosha and Noodlebush, are both elderly and seem to have
completely abandoned their hunting interest and responsibility. The result
is a house over-run with mice. Mice in the basement. Mice in the attic.
Mice in the kitchen. Mice in the pantry. And yes, mice in the Etosha's
room.  Etosha and Noodle have separate rooms because Etosha is so elderly
and frail that Noodlebush, AKA Fat Cat, would eat all her Fancy Feast.

I am completely inept at loading the old fashioned spring traps so have
given up on that. I tried a mousey version of the "have a heart" trap but
no mice ever entered it so I returned it. I tried the new, easy to load
plastic traps. They are easy to load, easy to bait, and apparently easy to
eat out of. I have never actually caught a mouse, but have lost a lot of
peanut butter bate. I bought one of the gizmos that emits a high pitched
sound which is so high pitched that neither you nor your dog can hear it,
but it drives mice so crazy they simply move on, that is, if you put it on
the "b" setting. On the "a" setting it drives spiders crazy and they
leave. Yah. And the emperor has some nice clothes too. So I opted for glue
boards. The directions suggest putting them against the wall and behind
things so kitties will not accidently get into them. Fair enough. The
implication is that these are humane because the mouse is so upset by
being caught in a puddle of glue that he instantly(and always) has a heart
attack and dies, also instantly.

After finding mouse droppings all along the edge of the wall and leading
up to the cat's food dish, I decided that putting one in Etosha's room was
in order. I carefully put it behind a box leaning against the wall. There
were lots of droppings back there; it was all but a mousey super highway.
With the box in front of it the cat was unable to accidently get into it.
Every day I eagerly looked behind the box. More droppings. No mouse.

Saturday morning I gave Fat Cat the run of the house for a while as Etosha
had already picked away at her breakfast. I was in the kitchen and
suddenly heard a great thumping and crashing around on the second floor.
Ah, I though, Fat Cat has returned to her roots and is chasing down a
miscreant mouse. After breakfast I went to investigate. No cat in sight.
No mouse parts in sight. I looked behind the box to see if I had caught a
mouse on the glue board. No glue board. NO GLUE BOARD! Something a lot
larger than a mouse had clearly walked off with my glue board. I went
hunting for Fat Cat.  I found her curled up on the foot of my bed. I
picked her up and felt something hard. The cat, the mouse and the glue
board had become one with each other. The glue board was firmly stuck to
the cat's foot and leg. The mouse had not yet suffered his fatal heart
attack, but he did not look real good either. Probably something to do
with being stuck to a pile of glue and nested under a 20# cat.

Cat, mouse, glue board and I went to the bathroom where the light is
better.  The solution was not obvious but I decided to just try to pull
the glue board off the cat. That more or less worked. The cat had a whole
lot of glue on her, but she was free of the mouse and the board. I wanted
to put the poor mouse out of his misery so figured the most humane thing
to do now was to drown him. So I threw the glue board and mouse into the
toilet. It floated. Great. This poor mouse must have concluded he was
having the worst day of his life. Fat Cat and I were not doing so well
either.

I set her down on the floor and she became one with the bathroom rug. I
extricated her from that and decided to put some toilet paper on the glue
where it would stick. Then she could walk around without getting stuck. I
am not at all sure why but that flat out didn't work. I was getting more
glue on myself with each passing moment. I found the empty glue board box
thinking there just had to be instructions on how to deal with this type
of situation. Yes, there were. Trouble was, they were written in .6 type.
I put the cat back down so I could find a magnifying glass. The cat got
glue on the floor, my slacks and a pair of Cuddle Duds long johns. There
was so much glue every where I was sort of hoping there was nothing left
on the cat.  Not.

The .6 type suggested mineral spirits. I am not sure if mineral spirits
means paint thinner, turpentine or if it something else all together. I
gave up. I took Fat Cat back to her room and hoped her first stop would be
the litter box. Then the glue would be covered with litter and at least it
wouldn't get on anything else.

I fished the floating mouse out of the toilet and decided that freezing
was now the best option. Actually, the mouse actually did look mostly
dead. He probably had died of confusion by this point.

I left for work hoping that this problem would solve itself. Actually it
sort of did. The cat had removed most of the glue from herself by the time
I got home. There was quite a lot of missing hair but no missing skin. She
did not seem happy. I busied myself at removing the glue from the bathroom
rug, my clothes, the bath room floor and the hall floor.

Sunday morning when I fed Etosha there were fresh mouse turds.

Build a better mouse trap and..! [at] #%!

Jeanne Weigum Merriam Park, Saint Paul

[Good stories are about bad things that happen to other people.  -ed]


--------17 of 17--------

                              bumpersticker #2

                          -------------------------
                           Support Our Mercenaries
                          -------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments

 To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg
 --------8 of x--------
 do a find on
 --8
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney





  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.