[ RadSafe ] Re: breast cancer least with 1-9 rads
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 29 14:54:06 CDT 2005
Have you read both papers? Yes or No.
--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> "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
> 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
> beliefs. It is easier to avoid admitting you are
> wrong by playing dumb.
> --- howard long wrote:
> > 34 breast cancers where 42.3 expected (control)
> > 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
> > 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
> > as by radiation. That is not a model, but
> > confirmation of epidemiologic data by biologic
> > Howard Long
> > John Jacobus wrote:
> > Howard,
> > Unlike some on this list, I have work to do and
> > not had time to review the articles cited. I
> > try to respond after reading all of the
> > I do not like to parrot other peoples work. In
> > 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
> > UV have to do with the discussion. TRY AND STAY ON
> > TOPIC.
> > As you your attachment, we had discussed this
> > and you did not ever respond to my question. Why
> > 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
> > ignore my question? Is it too difficult? It does
> > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
"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 Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
More information about the RadSafe