[ RadSafe ] Re: Log-log plot for excess breast cancer incidence rate

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 21 11:08:56 CDT 2005

Unlike some on this list, I have work to do and have
not had time to review the articles cited.  I usually
try to respond after reading all of the information. 
I do not like to parrot other peoples work.  In case
you do not understand, the ideas of Pollycove,
Feinendegen, are only models, as is the LNT.  

As usual, what does do you comments about iodine and
UV have to do with the discussion.   TRY AND STAY ON

As you your attachment, we had discussed this before
and you did not ever respond to my question.  Why did
the McGregor report of 1977 show an increase of breast
cancers at low doses?  You chose to ignore this
report, but keep citing the 1979 report.  Why do you
ignore my question?  Is it too difficult?  It does not
fit your beliefs?  Someone did not give you the

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> John, 
> You do not answer Ranier's point that BEIR VII
> POOLED (hid the low dose benefit)!
> Iodine (skull and crossbones on bottle) is added to
> salt to prevent goiter, deafness, cretinism and
> mental deficiency from Iodine deficient soil in
> parts of Mexico, Himalaya foothills and USA Great
> Lakes area. Epidemiology at work. 
> Likewise, radiation deficiency (UV and shorter wave
> length) can give terrible disease. The breast cancer
> - bomb studies Ranier references (I can attach for
> those requesting) 
> showed only 34 cases where 42.3 were expected at 1-9
> rad dose. 
> This was hidden by BEIR VII pooling. 
> About $1 trillion for "clean-up" that injures?
> Theft. Injury. Fraud.
> Howard Long
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> As I said, do not expect me to agree with you. Do
> you
> only deal with those who accept everything you say?
> I
> guess that makes life easier.
> I believe that you said you are not an
> epidemiologist.
> Yet, you do not accept the conclusion in the report
> who are epidemiologists, whose work (I assume) is
> accepted by other epidemiologists. My question does
> not deal with your mechanical abililty to draw a
> graph, but how you determine the results are
> inappropriate to the conclusion of the report.
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> > I used exactly the data as they have been
> published,
> > which have been quoted and assessed by BEIR VII-2
> > without apparently looking at them. I just wanted
> to
> > have a look.
> > 
> > You are invited to draw them by yourself and
> thereby
> > rectify my "manipulation" in order to arrive at
> your
> > own conclusion.
> > 
> > Why should I bother to argue with an apparent LNT
> > addict who summarizes (p.220) those data (after
> > pooling them with results for high dose rate
> > exposures including A-bomb survivors!!!) as:
> > "The results support the linearity of the dose
> > response for breast cancer"? 

"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

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list