Ionizing Radiation in Context Part 2

00:00 If you have any questions for Politics and Science, you can direct them by email to politicsandscienceatmadriver.com. That’s politicsandscienceatmadriver.com. Politics and Science can be heard weekly on WMRWLP1 95.1 FM airing on Mondays at 5 p.m. And in the Bellows Falls area can be heard on Wool LP Bellows Falls at 101.1 FM airing from 3 to 4 p.m. on Sundays and from 9 to 10 a.m. on Mondays. Politics and Science presents the viewpoints of its participants and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of any other person or organization. And today on Politics and Science, the 27th of April 2009, it’s the second in a series on looking at the uses and abuses of radiation in our culture with a particular focus on ionizing radiation, i.e. nuclear technology. 01:05 And again this week, I’m very pleased to have Dr. Raymond Pete, endocrinologist, physiologist, and science historian from Eugene, Oregon on the show today. And his website, if you’d like more information, is raypeat.com. And Ray, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, good. Last week we talked about some of the systemic and long-term cumulative effects of x-rays and other types of radiation. We also discussed radiation from power plants and many times our medical establishment compares it to less harmful things like sunlight. And you discussed that and basically pointed out that it’s like comparing apples and oranges. The key idea is linear energy transfer, how much of the energy actually gets in your tissue and interacts with it. I see. And the ionizing radiation has far more energy. 02:07 Yeah, and some of it, like the isotopes that get into the air and food release particles that have an extremely high energy transfer. And so those are the worst. And the others penetrate deeply and do damage along the way. But the intensity of the radiation isn’t the main thing, how much they interact with your tissue and in what ways. So those are actual radioactive particles. And last week we talked about those and we touched a little bit on the history of radiation. You talked about some of the scientists getting badly damaged by handling radioactive substances. We didn’t really focus on the history of the uses of radioactive materials in science and medicine and the military, which is eventually how they really got popularized. 03:12 Ray, could you perhaps give us a little summary of how radioactive technology crept into our culture? Oh, almost immediately when the curies discovered how deadly poisonous radium and related isotopes were, the medical profession became very interested because it was a fancier way to destroy tissue instead of just poisons and surgery. And cauterine, you know, acid and such, they had a new technique that seemed technological and impressive. And so it very quickly went from treating warts and tumors to all kinds of bizarre quackery. 04:14 I knew people when I was in college whose facial bones were collapsing because they had had the x-ray treatment for acne. And people whose hair had fallen out because they were treated for ringworm with x-rays. And total ignorance and arrogance combined to use whatever turned up. Who was treating them, Ray? Regular doctors. Just regular general practitioners? Yeah. And when I was a kid, shoe stores still had x-ray machines so anyone could look at their feet, bones, and see if the shoes fit. Just a technological gadget that entertained people. But regular doctors had fluoroscopes that would let you watch a person breathe and watch their heart move and watch their stomach and intestines move and so on. 05:27 And they were pumping nearly lethal doses of radiation into people. They would just stand there talking and watching for entertainment. Some of those things were putting out 50 to 100 rads in even a short treatment. And if they had come in for a weekly exam, they would have soon been dead. Just to compare that to a normal exposure from a chest x-ray, how much is that? Oh, I guess approaching a thousand times more from some of those fluoroscopes. In the last few years I’ve talked to people who had a whole combination of heart treatments where they put a tube or a wire up into your heart to open a clogged artery. 06:32 But they use a fluoroscope to watch where it’s going and these people get a tremendous amount of exposure. This is cumulative and it can cause brain degenerative diseases. And the heart surgeons who do that kind of work have a high incidence of brain cancer and so they are advised to wear a lead cap so they don’t get brain cancer. But the various types of physicians who work with radiation, radiologists and heart surgeons especially, have a higher rate of girl children. And that’s the same as electricians who work around high voltage power lines and the birds that nest near the high tension lines. 07:44 It doesn’t have to be ionizing to have really made for biological effects. And why is it that they produce girl children instead of male children? Apparently the male, fertilized opium and embryo and fetus at all stages, the male is weaker. The female has a better resistance in general. Partly it’s because all these types of radiation imitate estrogen in their biological actions and estrogen tends to bias the sex ratio of the offspring. These fluoroscopes you were talking about, they were a novelty. What year were you talking about originally where people were using it just to observe the breathing and things like that? 08:51 All through the 40s and the 50s. The shoe stores I think they were outlawed in the mid-1950s. And in the 40s, did doctors have any idea of the danger of X-rays or did they just think it was a momentary danger? Doctors never have any idea about anything except what they’re told is a good practice. The information was available like chiropractors and borderline people in medical profession had pamphlets in their office. At that time in the 1940s I saw these pamphlets giving references to the research literature showing that radiation accelerates aging process. Meanwhile real doctors were exposing their patients to doses that would not only accelerate aging but would tremendously increase the cancer mortality. 10:04 Leukemia was extremely high in that period not only from radioactive fallout from atmospheric bomb tests but from the medical X-rays of pregnant women and fluoroscoping of the general patients. So it sounds like our culture was basically in love with modern technological gadgets. Just the same as it is now. Some differences but same principles. I’m sure most doctors if they heard that information from a source that they respected would have cut out many of those practices. I think they have probably cut out most of the excessive ones. With the people who sell the equipment create mythologies to say those are just quacks that warn you that radiation will accelerate aging. 11:17 Now 60 years later some of the best research is showing that radiation causes the formation of amyloid. The type of substance that is incriminated in Alzheimer’s disease and degenerative lung disease and kidney disease and pancreatic disease and so on. Amyloid is a plaque? It’s a type of protein that forms plaques. When a protein normally the very common structure of a protein is that there are helix structures, a spiral piece of a chain of protein. And with a certain disturbance those spirals can break down and fall over against themselves and make a sheet arrangement called a pleated sheet. 12:22 Those sheets then can stick to a similar sheet structure in another protein and this array of pleated sheets in different protein molecules sticking together forms a long fibro. And then those fibrils are what actually forms the plaque. So first you form the degraded protein and then proteins form fibers and the fibers condense into the visible plaques that they call amyloid. And that’s a common symptom in Alzheimer’s patients? Yeah, and it’s turning up in practically all aged tissues. It’s accelerated by radiation and toxins and estrogen and even microwaves and other types of disturbing energy. 13:28 Ultrasound even in vitro you can produce amyloid fibrils with energy as low as ultrasound or microwaves. I thought ultrasound was actually protective of tissue but I guess it does have some drawbacks then. Yeah, everything that puts energy into cells and tissues in unbiological ways can cause some disruption. I can see how that would be. We were talking to Professor Gilbert Ling a few weeks ago and he was basically talking about the electrical nature of living tissue. How everything is basically in an electrical relationship all the proteins and the water within a cell. Yeah, the electrical interactions between proteins and water. That’s exactly where the problem is with all kinds of radiation and even toxins. 14:36 The romantic classical physics people who wanted to think mathematically about radiation and assure people that there was a threshold below which radiation wasn’t at all harmful. This kind of thinking wanted to say that a unit of radio energy had to be sufficient to break a chain of DNA before anything happened biologically. That takes a direct hit and a certain high energy so that’s where the idea of the danger of ionizing radiation came from. But before the ionizing radiation actually has a direct hit and breaks a DNA chain, it’s doing many much more subtle things causing fluctuations in the electronic system of proteins 15:54 and causing subtle changes in the way water relates to those proteins. So if the medical world and physics had been paying closer attention to Gilbert Ling’s work 50 years ago, most of these questions would have been settled in a very different way with much more concern for protection than for promotion of industry. So you feel like basically the marketing side of our culture is what’s determined its medical course? The people with the next ray machine to sell will tell doctors that this one delivers 10 times less energy and the dose is below the threshold. So you can give a person a sub-threshold dose every six months if you want to and they’ll never have any harm from it. 17:01 But these little sub-threshold doses actually modify the water structure which directs the way the tissue develops and affects things like the immune system and the way nerves pattern themselves. And so it redirects the course of your development and in a young individual that deviation of development can produce drastic and fatal effects very quickly. In mature people it accelerates aging and degeneration more often than a quick cancer or other lethal event. So people became more and more concerned because it seems like there is more concern at this point. People were already beginning to understand it in the 1930s. 18:03 I mentioned last week that Thomas Edison after 1904 became a great opponent of the medical use of x-rays and other people, especially in other countries, were studying the actual biological effects. And in the 30s there was enough known that they should have shut down all medical x-rays and banned the development of nuclear industry. But the government and the nuclear industry and the medical instrument corporations were re-educating the people and convincing the public that those researchers were only unrealistic quacks that hated technology. With the subtle effects of the interaction of radiation with cellular electronics and cellular light effects and water interactions with proteins and so on, all of those were developing along another course all through the 30s, 40s and 50s. 19:30 Albert St. Georgie was one of these people working on the subtle but essential biological interactions of electrons, water and light. And for, I guess, 20 or 30 years he was just totally sidelined even though he won the Nobel Prize for work on vitamin C and respiration, his work on light and cell luminescence and so on. Just put him out of the mainstream. People who criticize industry become the victims of corporate government campaigns to convince the public not to listen to them. 20:32 Big nuclear corporations, I guess they still do it, but some of them used to have weekly seminars where they would have people come in and tell the staff, all the physicists and engineers working there that radiation was actually good for them biologically. And then they would smear people who had presented evidence of the toxic effects of radiation or nuclear plants. For example, Stern class, people were convinced that he was such a quack that they wouldn’t even look at his books, and Alice Stewart who showed that medical x-rays were probably the main cause of childhood cancer. For about 30 years she was ridiculed because the corporations campaigned and fought their employees, but these were basically demanded or insane people. 21:52 Do you think this mindset was connected in any way to the military use of? Well, the military, once they started doing their atmospheric tests, they joined up with the medical, the x-ray industry and so on, and they had massive campaigns to tell the public that fallout was good for you, that it was below a threshold and that it would actually stimulate you to be slightly irradiated. And the professors who criticized that campaigns were mounted using some of the right-wing organizations like the John Birch Society to create scandals. The professor would be identified as an opponent of atmospheric bomb testing, and then they would create a scandal implicating them in some kind of immoral or pro-communist activity and get them fired for something other than their expressed opposition. 23:21 So it was really an organized campaign. Yeah, very involving organizations like the John Birchers and the CIA and the US Public Health Service was a major player in that campaign to incriminate the critics and hide the evidence, destroy the evidence in many cases and tell the public that they were safe. So the Public Health Service was very influential with the medical profession, especially. It sounds like this is sort of the Cold War is when it started to really get bad in terms of the universities being affected and all of our public health services. Yeah, there was no line between physics and biology because the people with the biological orientation sent charging and Gilbert Lange and anyone interested in the subtle biology, they were called quacks. 24:36 And even the Cold War got involved because the idea of acquired damage other than a random mutation was identified as a lecincal Soviet doctrine and they were fired. So you had to be a certain kind of genetic dogmatist to teach biology in the United States after 1950. Yeah, that’s just so bizarre. I think most people think that science is an objective basically art and that empirical art and that’s basically the bottom line. So a very good place to get insight into how the whole system works is to start with German romantic physics in the 19th century and see how that directly led into the 20th century nuclear physics. 25:44 They were wanting to subjectify physics and make it part of a spiritual quest for unity and seeking the absolute and facts got in the way. It was presented as a subjective art expression and that’s where the Heisenberg thing came in that you can’t know the things on the fine level. It’s all ultimately random and so our mind, the knowing system is the only thing that counts. So it’s sort of a victory of subjective idealism over empirical science. That’s interesting. I didn’t know it started with German romantic physics. It sounds like it’s sort of the beginning of eugenics and Aryan pure thought. 26:46 Yeah, Hitler was just a business like application. The others were more refined and ethereal. And it’s discouraging that that should live on to this day. Oh, well, it was deliberately imported. The journals of human genetics originated in the eugenics movement and they renamed themselves after the war. But the German physics and genetics people were idealized and many of them were imported to become influential in the United States. You talked about the American culture, maybe all most of the world’s industrialized nations, culture of love of new technology. In terms of selling nuclear technology, it seems like the equation E equals MC squared in Einstein’s popularity really played a big role in bringing that to the front of popular culture. 28:00 I don’t claim to understand what E equals MC squared means except it sounds like just on a superficial level that energy is the same thing as matter, which to me is a little confusing. It sounds like it’s saying that everything is the same as everything else. Yeah, that only becomes really dangerous when they start saying that energy and information are the same and that knowing and matter are the same. You can argue about how interactive energy and substance are. Einstein had an interesting exchange with Max Born and another physics worker about whether the field of a particle is part of the substance of the particle. Einstein’s position was that the field should count as matter and so far from Einstein’s perspective there was nothing idealistic about it necessarily. 29:20 Energy was just another form of matter, substance that could be related to ordinary forms of matter. But when you invoke the quantum ideas, the Heisenberg principle, then you throw out matter and substitute mind and information and much of the computer culture is committed to that kind of doctrine about the nature of knowing and information. It wants to take the substance out of information. So when you say that the field is part of matter, that means that the matter is part of its environment, is that what you’re saying? Yeah, all of the world including our knowledge of the world is part of the same substantial stuff. 30:34 The process of knowing becomes substantial and physical. For example, there are people who have demonstrated luminescence in the visual center of the brain and in the optic nerve and so on that when we see a colored light we actually light up with that color inside. We’re putting consciousness right into the physical interaction with different substances interacting so you can think of our consciousness as a physical resonance. We are learning to tune ourselves up to the energy of the substance outside and there’s nothing anti-material or ethereal about that kind of interpretation of consciousness. 31:40 The people who talk about information being transmitted along nerves which have a simple all or nothing on or off switch like behavior, that reduces knowledge and its interaction with substance to something mathematical. So many on switches and so many off switches are supposed to amount to consciousness but nothing is left that relates to how we experience reality. We’re talking to Dr. Raymond Pete, endocrinologist, physiologist and science historian from Eugene, Oregon. So it sounds like they’re reducing what you object to is that they’re reducing life to something that’s just basically mechanical and it doesn’t really live in the environment. Yeah and it’s always, if you see information as separated from substance, your interpretation like the Heisenbergian idea, interpretation is what makes the difference because you can never know the actual details of the fine structure of matter. 33:08 And so your theory of what you’re perceiving is the real thing and so it reduces consciousness to a cluster of theories like states in the computer. It sounds like it reduces confidence too. It sounds like Heisenberg is saying that you can’t know your own world and you’re… You can’t be sure about it. It’s all probabilistic and random. Is that essentially the message of quantum physics? Yeah and the really bad consequence is that it all becomes deductive. The hypothesis is tested against the reality but the reality is merely statistical probability. And so the definiteness is only on the side of theory and that means that you can think your way to the absolute and the truth but you don’t have to learn your way because out of this probabilistic quantum world 34:34 nothing definite is going to come without the insertion of that specific set of deductive mind principles. And the other way of looking at it is that knowledge is always something that is inert in the past except when we’re learning new knowledge. The inflow from the changing world is where knowledge comes from. When you’re talking about those not being able to know the world, do you think that scientific attitude of quantum physics is used to basically say that even though there’s radiation there and it may cause some harm, but we can’t really know that. To me, just to get the general impression that it’s taking away the liability because you can be a corporation out there and pollute the heck out of the world and make a lot of people sick 35:39 but none of us can really know if that’s really true and so it’s just the way it is. Yeah, that’s for decades. John Goffman went around working for the government saying that we can’t know that this is causing terrible damage in the future. The idea that you shouldn’t act on anything that you haven’t tested empirically, you can’t make your judgment as one piece of the world sensing the possibilities, but you have to do everything after the fact. The knowledge after the fact is the only thing that Goffman would recognize for years and then suddenly it occurred to him that if you’re doing the damage, 36:40 maybe it would be nice to take a precautionary attitude and now people are talking about a precautionary principle that you should think about what harm might happen in the future even though it hasn’t been hypothesized and tested in the conventional scientific way. It’s more like a common sense. You don’t wait until the accident happens to avoid the accident. Yeah. No, but Ray, we have a product. We have to get it in the market. If we do that, we’ll lose valuable marketing time. Yeah, and that somehow people forget their common sense when they see people in white coats and being sponsored by big corporations and the government saying that we have no knowledge that this is going to harm you in the future. 37:45 It also sounds like quantum physics is a very good physics for an authoritarian culture. If you’ve ever listened to a lot of physics professors or tried talking to them, you realize that the whole physics culture has that authoritarian textbook quality. They don’t know anything if it isn’t in the textbooks and if it is in the textbooks, you can’t question it. They are very hard people to actually talk to except things like bowling or golfing and their weekend activities. They can act like regular people but as professors, they are in a separate world. So the textbook basically establishes the party line and then that has to be stuck too. Yeah. And if you read the professional science textbooks, looking at old ones, it’s as interesting as reading novels to see how a given professor was constructing his textbook. 39:02 But they are sometimes interesting individual works of art but the outstanding thing is how rigid they are. When you say it’s like reading a novel, how do you mean? You can see the mind of the creator at work sorting out the things that are to be emphasized and not expressing. Maybe this happened and maybe this is true. A novel would get very complex and confusing if they tried to be empirical about their imagination. I see. The textbook writers are always too sure of what they are saying and they are almost always wrong. In the textbooks? Yeah. When you look at old textbooks, it really makes me think of Monty Python. 40:10 Maybe you should put some of those skits into screenplays. We have about 15 minutes left and I thought maybe we’d touch on a little more about nuclear power. One of the arguments I’ve heard now for bringing nuclear power back is number one for global warming because it’s purportedly creates less greenhouse gases, although Helen Caldecott was just here and she agreed with many of the things you’re saying about radiation and she said it is cumulative. She also said that the production of nuclear power involves tons of greenhouse gases because it’s so energy intensive to not only build a nuclear power plant but also produce the fuel that goes into it. I think some of the arguments for bringing back nuclear power because basically a new plant hasn’t been built in 30 or 40 years is we should do what the French do, 41:13 which is recycle the spent fuel rods that are slowly but surely building up in all the spent fuel rod pools outside of every nuclear reactor in this country with no place for them to go. Always one of the big technological problems with nuclear power is what to do with the fuel. A lot of people are saying that well we can recycle those and you said you just looked into that. Yeah, there’s a website called Environmental Devastation caused by reprocessing radioactive waste and they mentioned that the French plant has annually discharged 100 million gallons of radioactive waste into the English Channel by way of an underwater pipeline and you’ve probably heard of the industry and military dumping barrels, hundreds of thousands of barrels of radioactive waste dropped in the ocean about 10 or 20 miles off the coastlines all over the world 42:15 and those things are leaking and the food chain from the English Channel it has already drifted up to the Arctic over to Canada and it circulates, gets into the food chain and then 20 or 30 years later the people on the continents are starting to eat the radioactive fish that have eaten the waste they dumped in barrels but that was banned in the 90s after 60 years of dumping. Who was dumping it, the military or? Yeah, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Navy and Army and anyone who was authorized to use it would dump it and the dumping in barrels was banned about 15 years ago 43:17 but they didn’t ban putting a pipe out under the ocean and pumping it out and so this website says that the plant in the Hague alone has been discharging 100 million gallons of waste every year and another one in England, some in the United States dumping from the reprocessing plants, they’re dumping these immense amounts of waste more than they dumped in barrels so someone knew that it was bad to dump barrels of radioactive stuff into the ocean so then they started pumping it in in pipes we need some kind of a concept that doesn’t specify whether the behavior is governed by insanity or criminality because it all amounts to the same thing 44:20 Yeah, the waste that’s coming out of the pipes from reprocessing the nuclear waste, is it contaminated water or is it actually particles? Oh, particles! Huge amounts of uranium and plutonium are getting into the water and the fish are taking it up, strontium 90 and the further acting isotopes but the whole range of junk is getting into the ocean still Yeah, that’s really discouraging. Well, I hope that perhaps people will take a second look at nuclear power before they actually start building any more plants, it’s never made any sense to me they always claimed that they would solve the technological problem somewhere down the road but when you have a process that’s basically spewing out the worst poison known to man 45:24 The United States has two very contaminated areas besides what goes into the ocean and rivers, the Hanford plant in Washington and the Greenville dump in South Carolina Nearby town was finding their well water was contaminated with uranium and the people reporting it said that it must indicate some natural uranium mineral source upstream in the water table They were only 20 miles from the Greenville nuclear dump, wells in that area are being contaminated with all kinds of isotopes Several years ago I was driving south on I-5 going about the speed limit in Northern California and saw a huge truck coming up behind me going about 90 miles an hour and it went past there was this giant vat on the back 46:41 A big cylindrical hub was the only load and it said Greenville, South Carolina So the people who transport these giant vats of waste from Hanford to South Carolina aren’t the safest type of driver I remember there was some debate about whether to allow them to move nuclear waste around the country on the back of semi trucks and they did decide to allow it One of those trucks going across the mountains from Northern California reacted over to I-5 I guess heading for South Carolina The road was so narrow it got stuck going around it was such a long truck that it wouldn’t go around the corner in the highway And they had to take the truck apart which took all day but the people in charge of the whole nuclear industry are no smarter than the people who tend cars on the freeway 47:57 Yeah that just seems like such a vulnerable place to put such dangerous material Another thing I wanted to talk about that doesn’t have to do with nuclear power is incineration of medical waste Now I understand that goes on all the time and that’s actually putting it into the air Do you know anything about that Ray? No But they in general don’t worry much about like when they put radioactive iodine into a person They don’t worry about the person’s urine And when bodies are incinerated that goes into the air much of it is vaporized Oh well that’s true I had never thought about that I mean there’s actually those radioactivity or toxins that are in our bodies if you get cremated Yeah if they die with radium needles in their organs for example 49:01 And just the mercury and tea gets vaporized Oh I mean it’s actually more dangerous at that point than it is possibly in your mouth You talked about Alzheimer’s being caused by nuclear waste or ionizing radiation Does that correspond with sites near power plants and nuclear reprocessing plants? No one is very clear about that but I think it’ll turn out that it does People are starting to look at the various sources, microwave, radiation, telephones and power lines And there are some people who have been working on that for about 25 years and claim that it’s so and I suspect it is So you think, oh go ahead 50:02 Cataracts are another interesting thing they’re easy to study in a way because the cataract is a different state of the living matter And people have been trying to understand what happens in the cataract And it’s probably analogous to what happens in Alzheimer’s disease But it’s a much simpler system made up of very few types of protein And it turns out that in a cataract the proteins aren’t even denatured You would think that the radiation would have to at least change the proteins to make a cataract develop And they are caused by surgeons get cataracts from exposure to x-rays 51:08 And people who work around any kind of even low level radiation, microwaves and so on get cataracts And it turns out that the cataract is chemically almost identical to the surrounding tissue But it’s wetter, slightly higher water content than the healthy tissue around it And all that happens is a slight fluctuation in the electronic state of the protein And that lets the water get out of control and lets water accumulate rather than being under the influence of the system of proteins And the electronic fields of the proteins So it lets you see in a very concrete way how energy of not even thermal energy in the ordinary sense 52:15 But it is, you would classify it as thermal energy because it’s just the vibrational state of the water molecules which has changed And it makes all the difference between the lens that works and the lens that’s opaque And similar changes probably happen very early in a disease like Alzheimer’s or cancer If the tissue was visible you would probably see it as a changing state of the water and electronic behavior of the proteins That would be analogous to the opacity of the lens Long before you got any of the major deposition of amyloid and plaque formation that eventually shows up in the tumors and Alzheimer’s brain and so on 53:18 So you’re saying the radiation is changing the structure long before, in subtle ways Yeah, and if just microwaves and ultraviolet light can do it Then that says that when a gamma ray or x-ray passes through your brain like bouncing off a dental x-ray But these very relatively weak transmissions through your living tissue don’t have to even ionize anything All they have to do is slightly add some energy to the system It can not even be sufficient to cause electrons to get into a chemically reactive state But just enough to cause this semi-thermal fluctuation of electrons and water vibrations 54:28 We only have a few minutes left Last week you did say that there are things that if people have to be exposed to things like x-rays or any kind of stress There are things that as a physiologist and as an endocrinologist you say people can actually do to fortify themselves Yeah, keeping your energy at a peak like getting the damage done in the late afternoon in the summer is best But keeping your carbon dioxide up with adequate thyroid function Adequate progesterone, pregnenolone, testosterone and so on All of the tissue protective hormones and the nutrients magnesium in particular is the best established radiation protective nutrients And coffee happens to protect against all kinds of radiation damage that have been studied 55:33 Niacin amide is a vitamin that is protective and coffee happens to provide magnesium and niacin as well as the protective caffeine and antioxidants That’s great. We didn’t really get to talk about microwaves or Wi-Fi which I guess is another form Maybe some other time we’ll get you back and talk about that if you’re willing And we’ve been talking to Dr. Raymond Pete, endocrinologist, physiologist and science historian from Eugene, Oregon His website is raypeat, r-a-y-p-e-a-t dot com Ray, thanks again for being here and for all your work Goodbye And another hour has flown by with Dr. Raymond Pete Again, his website is raypeat, r-a-y-p-e-a-t dot com So thanks for listening, this has been Politics and Science 56:37 If you have any questions for Politics and Science, you can direct them by email to politicsandscienceatmadriver.com That’s politicsandscienceatmadriver.com Politics and Science can be heard weekly on WMRW LP1 95.1 FM airing on Mondays at 5 p.m. And in the Bellows Falls area can be heard on Wool LP Bellows Falls at 101.1 FM airing from 3 to 4 p.m. on Sundays and from 9 to 10 a.m. on Mondays Politics and Science presents the viewpoints of its participants and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of any other person or organization