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

[howard long]

"Controls", as much as possible after a bomb, were very carefully sought and showed the model-predicted increase in breast cancer at over 10 rads. That gives more confidence that the  finding of LESS breast cancer at 1-9 rad than without radiation was properly controlled, ("expected"). 
 
These data cannot be influenced by the 1977 paper pooling low dose data to hide the unwelcome fact that low dose radiation prevents cancer, as low dose sunshine prevents rickets. Radiation is essential for best health, like vitamins or iodine. All can be overdosed.
 
Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
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 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 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