AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Science" reports on background radiation andhealth

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,

Obviously you do not understand my point.  I asked for
information that correlates high background radiation
with health effects.  I did not ask about low dose
irradiation; I did not ask about cellular studies; I
did not ask about LNT; I did not ask about ecological
epidemiology; etc.

Please do not waste my time and yours by sending a
list of every article you have that are not relative
to my question.  I do not have to read every scrap of
paper you have listed.  Try and stay focused on what I
am asking for.  If you can refer to a paper that
discussed the health people in high background areas,
let me know.

You may think this discuss is a waste of time.  It is
if you ignore my question.  As I said before, do not
expect me to accept everything you say or believe.  

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> John:
> 
>  
> 
> Before we continue this futile exchange I suggest
> you start studying at least some of the more than 3
> dozen references I offered upon your request.
> Afterwards we might continue to discuss the evidence
> provided there on the health status as a function of
> background radiation these populations are exposed
> to. By then you might also understand why I referred
> to the ecological fallacy argument.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards, Rainer
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Mi 10.08.2005 23:30
> An: Facius, Rainer; jimm at WPI.EDU; maurysis at ev1.net
> Cc: cdn-nucl-l at mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca;
> mbrexchange at list.ans.org; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Science" reports
> on background radiation andhealth
> 
> 
> 
> Rainer,
> I think you have fallen prey to the problem of
> wishful
> thinking.  As a scientist, I expected more for you. 
> 
> This has nothing to do with the LNT or ecological
> studies.  It is what science is about.  Studies
> performed and evidence presented.  Do you know of
> any
> that support the idea that people who live in high
> background areas are healthier and live longer?
> 
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> > "Can you cite any epidemiological studies..."
> >
> > 
> >
> > John:
> >
> > 
> >
> > Apparently you have fallen prey to the fairy tale
> > perpetuated by linear philosophers that ecological
> > epidemiological studies yield no valid conclusion
> > whatsoever. Particularly in case of linear
> > stimulus-risk relations, BL Cohen has conclusively
> > refuted that myth. Otherwise it might indeed be
> > impossible to extract risk coefficients from
> > ecological studies. But who actually cares about
> > risk coefficients if the complete (of course
> > non-linear) risk function representing essentially
> > the whole population is known. Obviously again
> only
> > linear minds would care. Otherwise you might wish
> to
> > study some of the results demonstrated in the
> papers
> > of the incomplete list below (BTW, not all report
> > ecological studies).
> >
> > 
> >
> > Kind regards, Rainer
> >
> >  . . .
> 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a
> new idea and never shrinks back to its original
> proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
> 
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> 
> 
>                
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs