[ RadSafe ] Re: breast cancer least with 1-9 rads

[John Jacobus]

Again, you do not comment on the 1977 report which
shows an increase based on real data.  The 1979 paper
expected is only an estimated risk.  I cannot
understand why you cannot understand the difference.

Of course, you may be deliberately avoiding the
results of the 1977 paper because it goes against your
beliefs.  It is easier to avoid admitting you are
wrong by playing dumb. 

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

> 34 breast cancers where 42.3 expected (control) for
> 1-9 rad bomb exposure,
> with MORE b ca than expected at higher and lower
> exposures, tends to refute a "linear" hypothesis.
> (Land and McGregor J Natl Cancer Inst 62:1 Jan 1979,
> table 2).
>  
> I have repeatedly heard and read my classmate
> Pollycove and assure radsafers that his original
> laboratory work on animals and cells does fit
> thousands of epidemiologic and biologic
> studies. His and Feinendigan's thesis is that
> biologic defenses are stimulated by LDR 
>  
> It is understood by the mind-boggling billions of
> times as frequent disruptions from normal oxidation,
> as by radiation. That is not a model, but
> confirmation of epidemiologic data by biologic data
>  
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Howard,
> 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
> TOPIC.
> 
> 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
> answer?
> 
> --- howard long 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 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 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"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 
http://mail.yahoo.com