[ RadSafe ] Model predicts excess breast cancer. Fact: 8 saved by 1-9 rad!
hflong at pacbell.net
Fri Jul 22 17:58:53 CDT 2005
When model does not fit facts and BEIR chooses model, one asks, "Why?"
34 breast cancers were actually found in women exposed to 1-9 rad by the bombs,
a group where 42.3 were expected without exposure (8 saved ! ). About 50 are predicted by the model. More breast cancers than expected without the extra radiation were indeed found with
10-49, 50-99 and 100-199 rad exposure. (Land and McGregor J Natl Cancer Inst 62:1 Jan 1979). I will attach the table as requested. No attachments go through this list.
Why does BEIR select a model that smooths the obvious curve into a line,
instead of rejoicing that nuclear exposure up to 10 rad (more than a whole body CT)
seems to prevent cancer?
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, maybe I misunderstood. However, I would like
to get your comment on the breast risk model given in
the BEIR VII report that is attached.
I am somewhat out of my league with the analysis you
are doing. However, I would like to get your
prespective on the conclusions of the BEIR VII report
since this is more relevant to me.
--- George Stanford wrote:
> Thanks for the info. However, I have made
> comments regarding leukemia. My remarks pertained
> specifically to the data for hemangiomas that Rainer
> Facius extracted from the paper by Preston et al. I
> observed, specifically, that the LNT model fits
> data within the experimental error limits. That
> a threshold model with some hormesis fits the
> data considerably better.
More information about the RadSafe