🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 26, 6:54 am, "When Liberals Lie" <liberal...@dishonesty-by-
design.com> wrote:
> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/02/10/lawrence-solomon-the-
> fallout-of-the-nobel-scam-of-1946/
>
> Why do most people today, scientists included, believe that
> small doses of radiation are harmful to human health when no
> proof for this theory exists, and when mountains of evidence
> show the opposite — that small amounts of radiation actually
> promote health? After years of sleuthing into historical
> records, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts has
> found a smoking gun, involving a scientific scam in 1946 at the
> very highest echelons — the Nobel Prize ceremonies in Stockholm.
>
> In an august Nobel hall one year after the end of the Second
> World War, the scientific world was knowingly misled by Hermann
> J. Muller, winner that year of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and
> Medicine. This is the verdict from a forensic review entitled
> Muller’s Nobel Prize Lecture: When Ideology Prevailed Over
> Science, just published by the Society of Toxicology in the
> Oxford University Press’s Toxicological Sciences. Had Muller
> spoken the truth and revealed the existence of contradictory
> research in the world’s most prominent scientific gathering, we
> might today have an entirely different view of radiation and its
> effects, preventing immense human suffering and the loss of
> countless lives.
>
> Prior to the Second World War, the world of medicine saw
> radiation as a life-giving therapy as well as a diagnostic tool:
> Ordinary X-ray machines were widely used to zap more than two
> dozen different types of infections, gangrene among them,
> miraculously eliminating the need to amputate limbs. But science
> didn’t understand how exactly radiation worked its wonders,
> leading to conjecture that radiation, a known killer at very
> high doses, might do harm as well as good. One theory that arose
> held that radiation also killed at low doses, only in smaller
> proportions. This theory — that there is no safe dose for
> radiation — became the focus of a hot dispute, with one medical
> camp accepting it, the other rejecting it, and both
> investigating it.
>
> Muller was in the ascendant “no safe dose” camp that claimed
> that there is no threshold below which radiation stops being
> harmful. As he told the distinguished attendees in Stockholm in
> accepting his Nobel Prize, the evidence now leaves “no escape
> from the conclusion that there is no threshold dose” of
> radiation. It was a convincing performance in the world’s most
> prestigious scientific gathering, except Muller himself knew
> that statement to be unsupportable. The historical evidence, as
> uncovered by Edward Calabrese, the author of the forensic
> review, leaves no escape from the conclusion that Muller was
> engaged in duplicity.
>
> Five weeks before Muller delivered his Nobel acceptance speech,
> he had received a manuscript from Prof. Curt Stern, a prominent
> radiation geneticist who had headed a project for the Manhattan
> Project that had also employed Muller as a consultant. The
> manuscript confirmed an earlier study that demonstrated a safe
> dose. Muller responded to Stern in a private letter, saying he
> had no dispute with the study but felt that its findings were so
> significant to the debate that the new study needed to be
> replicated as soon as possible, a major undertaking that would
> take a year.
>
> Muller then went to Stockholm to accept his Nobel Prize as if
> the manuscript had never existed. Another several weeks and
> Muller again wrote Stern, to again impress on him the importance
> of replicating the manuscript’s findings. As Calabrese’s expose
> reveals, Muller not only convinced the Nobel Prize assemblage
> that the science was settled on the danger of low levels of
> radiation, he also succeeded in marginalizing the Stern
> manuscript, effectively thwarting important lines of inquiry.
> Score one giant victory for scientific deception, one giant loss
> for truth in science.
>
> What harm was done by Muller’s false assertion in Stockholm?
> Although the scientific world has recently rediscovered the
> benefits of low levels of radiation in a growing discipline
> called radiation hormesis — universities now offer courses in
> hormesis and scientific journals publish an increasing number of
> hormesis studies — Muller’s role in derailing research over many
> decades is undeniable. The costs have been incalculable. As good
> as antibiotics have been, for example, they continue to
> underperform the pre-Second World War success rate of X-ray
> therapy in preventing amputations and deaths from gangrene.
> Studies also show that routine exposure to low levels of
> radiation act as a tonic, dramatically preventing numerous
> diseases, including major killers such as heart disease and
> cancer.
>
> Muller is now dead and buried, along with perhaps thousands,
> perhaps millions who met an untimely death in part because of
> him.
>
> Next up, the Obama Nobel scam exposed.

I am looking forward to your next post. Now I want that people shall
learn more about radiation, and then they should go to
radiationandreason.com
Also it would be smart to search for
cohen radiation risk lle
--
                                           jo