It is Friday night. I just listened to your conversation with Steve when you hung up on him. I want you to know something. You are dealing with the wrong person when you're dealing with Jose. He is the one that gives us up. This is no longer about you.
I've had media parked out front at the end of my driveway for the last 48 hours. People are protesting, they're throwing rocks, they're coming up to the door, some guys are leaving you notes and love letters. This is not about you. This is about our church, this is about my family. My daughter's picture has been on the Internet and Steve hasn't said a word. Not one word.
People are writing the most vile, repulsive things to him via e-mail and Twitter and Facebook and it's just disgusting and he has not said a word. You are siding with the wrong person. Jose is going to do you wrong. He's already done you wrong. He's sold us out and we know it for a fact. I don't care if you don't want to hear it, that is a fact.
You have a church here, you have people that care about you and have protected you. We haven't said a word, until, all of a sudden, it would be good to know that you were just going to up and leave four days ago, we could have made a very simple statement and avoided all of this hassle.
But this is unbelievable to me and I think you need to rethink and seriously pray about what you're doing. This has nothing to do with you down in your undisclosed location, it's right here hot in my yard, and we are still sticking up for you. I just want you to know that because we love you and we've cared for you. And that is not going to change. We will still protect you.
But this is just…don't you ever hang up on my husband again. He has been the truest strength you've ever had and the kids are just going to be heartbroken. I don't know what you're doing. I can't believe it. For once get outside your own head and think of someone else. Think of this family…they deserve thanks, thanks for having my back here, I'm sorry you have to go through this…nothing! It's just all about you! What is wrong with you?! Really?
Anyway, that's all I have to say so I guess we'll hear from you or something, I hope. Anyway, I do love you. I want you to think seriously about what you're doing, not just for you, but for all involved. Thank you. Goodnight.
AirHotel, a sustainable and mobile hanging hotel designed by a group of Belgian artists, is actually a collection of six unique pod-like rooms, each with its own theme. May 10 - June 2, AirHotel will be set up at the Norfolk & Norwich Festival in the UK, where a stay in one of its wacky rooms will begin at about $57 per occupant. More »
Music lovers have numerous strong choices for organizing and playing their collections of songs on the Linux desktop. But music creators have far fewer professional-strength options among Linux applications. But with Linux MultiMedia Studio, or LMMS, one option may be all you really need. LMMS does it all and does it all well.
Los Angeles, CA (May 01, 2012) Each time a release of radioactivity occurs, questions arise and debates unfold on the health risks at low dosesand still, just over a year after the disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, unanswered questions and unsettled debates remain. Now a special issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by SAGE, examines what is new about the debate over low-dose radiation risk, specifically focusing on areas of agreement and disagreement, including quantitative estimates of cancer risk as radiation dose increases, or what is known as the linear non-threshold theory (LNT). The issue, which includes essays written by the top experts in their fields, does not claim to put the argument to resthowever, it does provide an indispensible update of the existing literature.
As Jan Beyea, guest editor and nuclear physics and epidemiology expert, says: "The reader will be ready to join the debate armed with a broad-based view of the epidemiologic evidence and its differing interpretations, along with an awareness of the stakeholder and researcher landscape." Beyea personally contributes to the issue and deconstructs the low-level radiation debate, unpacking all its parts and illuminating what deserves more attention and scrutiny.
There has been, and continues to be, considerable debate among members of the scientific community, political and industry leaders, and the public around the claim that atomic-bomb data is relevant to estimating risks from protracted exposures. This debate has contributed to the delay in updating some US regulatory dose limits that are based on a pre-1990 understanding of radiation risks.
"My article explores the new, large-scale epidemiologic studies that are directly relevantnot to one-time exposures received at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but to the protracted exposures that are received from continuous decay of radioactive isotopes associated with releases from Fukushima or from the Soviet and US weapons complexes," says Beyea.
Social scientist Paul Slovic updates his classic work on the "perception gap" between expert and the general public on the health risks of radiation sources. Roger Kasperson, another social scientist, writes on how individuals and social groups amplify risk as they process nuclear disastersand the rippling effects of their understandings.
In his article in the Bulletin, technical and policy analyst Gordon Thompson challenges experts and professional bodies to avoid combining debates on science and policy and to acknowledge the implication of the LNT hypothesis. On another policy note, Terry Brock and Sami Sherbini from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission examine the role that risk estimates of health effects play in regulating nuclear power in the United Statesand that it can take many decades before scientific studies actually affect regulations.
Epidemiologist David Richardson analyzes the history of quantitative data used in LNT predictions of dose response, derived mainly from the one-time exposures of the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors. And radiobiologist Colin Hill reviews the latest biological research on genomic instability, bystander effects, and adaptive responseeffects that may lead to a better understanding of responses at very low doses and also help quantify any deviations from the LNT.
But has any of the epidemiologic evidence has been interpreted properly? Biostatistician Sander Greenland thinks not. Misleading interpretations of low-dose epidemiologic data result in an underestimate of the full health impacts, because of failure to account for diseases with accelerated onsets, he says.
###
From 1st of May, the articles are free of charge for one month and can be accessed at http://bos.sagepub.com/. Members of the media can sign up for complimentary subscriptions by contacting pr@sagepub.co.uk for details.
For embargoed copies of the articles please contact: mithu.lucraft@sagepub.co.uk
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
The Bulletin is an independent nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization that publishes analysis and conducts forums about nuclear security, climate stabilization, and safety in the biosciences. Founded by Manhattan Project scientists from the University of Chicago, it links the work of scholars and experts with policymaking entities and citizens around the world. An international network of authors assesses scientific advancements that involve both benefits and risks to humanity, with the goal of influencing public policy to protect the Earth and its inhabitants. The organization's scientific advisory boards include 19 Nobel laureates, ambassadors, leading scholars, distinguished NGO officials, and public policy experts. The Bulletin is closely followed in Washington and other world capitals and uses its iconic Doomsday Clock to draw international attention to global risks and solutions.
SAGE is a leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets. Since 1965, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students spanning a wide range of subject areas including business, humanities, social sciences, and science, technology, and medicine. An independent company, SAGE has principal offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC. www.sagepublications.com
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Experts write on the risks of low-level radiationPublic release date: 1-May-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Los Angeles, CA (May 01, 2012) Each time a release of radioactivity occurs, questions arise and debates unfold on the health risks at low dosesand still, just over a year after the disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, unanswered questions and unsettled debates remain. Now a special issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by SAGE, examines what is new about the debate over low-dose radiation risk, specifically focusing on areas of agreement and disagreement, including quantitative estimates of cancer risk as radiation dose increases, or what is known as the linear non-threshold theory (LNT). The issue, which includes essays written by the top experts in their fields, does not claim to put the argument to resthowever, it does provide an indispensible update of the existing literature.
As Jan Beyea, guest editor and nuclear physics and epidemiology expert, says: "The reader will be ready to join the debate armed with a broad-based view of the epidemiologic evidence and its differing interpretations, along with an awareness of the stakeholder and researcher landscape." Beyea personally contributes to the issue and deconstructs the low-level radiation debate, unpacking all its parts and illuminating what deserves more attention and scrutiny.
There has been, and continues to be, considerable debate among members of the scientific community, political and industry leaders, and the public around the claim that atomic-bomb data is relevant to estimating risks from protracted exposures. This debate has contributed to the delay in updating some US regulatory dose limits that are based on a pre-1990 understanding of radiation risks.
"My article explores the new, large-scale epidemiologic studies that are directly relevantnot to one-time exposures received at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but to the protracted exposures that are received from continuous decay of radioactive isotopes associated with releases from Fukushima or from the Soviet and US weapons complexes," says Beyea.
Social scientist Paul Slovic updates his classic work on the "perception gap" between expert and the general public on the health risks of radiation sources. Roger Kasperson, another social scientist, writes on how individuals and social groups amplify risk as they process nuclear disastersand the rippling effects of their understandings.
In his article in the Bulletin, technical and policy analyst Gordon Thompson challenges experts and professional bodies to avoid combining debates on science and policy and to acknowledge the implication of the LNT hypothesis. On another policy note, Terry Brock and Sami Sherbini from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission examine the role that risk estimates of health effects play in regulating nuclear power in the United Statesand that it can take many decades before scientific studies actually affect regulations.
Epidemiologist David Richardson analyzes the history of quantitative data used in LNT predictions of dose response, derived mainly from the one-time exposures of the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors. And radiobiologist Colin Hill reviews the latest biological research on genomic instability, bystander effects, and adaptive responseeffects that may lead to a better understanding of responses at very low doses and also help quantify any deviations from the LNT.
But has any of the epidemiologic evidence has been interpreted properly? Biostatistician Sander Greenland thinks not. Misleading interpretations of low-dose epidemiologic data result in an underestimate of the full health impacts, because of failure to account for diseases with accelerated onsets, he says.
###
From 1st of May, the articles are free of charge for one month and can be accessed at http://bos.sagepub.com/. Members of the media can sign up for complimentary subscriptions by contacting pr@sagepub.co.uk for details.
For embargoed copies of the articles please contact: mithu.lucraft@sagepub.co.uk
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
The Bulletin is an independent nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization that publishes analysis and conducts forums about nuclear security, climate stabilization, and safety in the biosciences. Founded by Manhattan Project scientists from the University of Chicago, it links the work of scholars and experts with policymaking entities and citizens around the world. An international network of authors assesses scientific advancements that involve both benefits and risks to humanity, with the goal of influencing public policy to protect the Earth and its inhabitants. The organization's scientific advisory boards include 19 Nobel laureates, ambassadors, leading scholars, distinguished NGO officials, and public policy experts. The Bulletin is closely followed in Washington and other world capitals and uses its iconic Doomsday Clock to draw international attention to global risks and solutions.
SAGE is a leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets. Since 1965, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students spanning a wide range of subject areas including business, humanities, social sciences, and science, technology, and medicine. An independent company, SAGE has principal offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC. www.sagepublications.com
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tAAuGSRYThAIWnzojiQcUBR7jq308FJjtQDqQF3R3VrBpV86DGRBU4y24wE0WjQdfWL9lqxWVWE3CzDSmjSdCG0gbkBl7YDtGlaXnS63g=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 1-May-2012
Share ]