AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!

[Sandy Perle]

On 21 Apr 2006 at 7:15, John Jacobus wrote:

> I will have to look through my docuements to find
> appropriate papers to reference or send.  I will try
> and find specific referecnes that cite Dr. Cameron's
> conclusions about this study.  Like you and others on
> this list, I do cannot spend all my time monitoring
> this list and reponding to every message.  

One of Dr. John Cameron's posts:

Date sent:	Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:41:33 -0500
From:	john cameron <jrcamero at wiscmail.wisc.edu>
Subject:	Hormetic Effects of Radiation should not be limited to 
cancer.
To:	"Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at UCDAVIS.EDU>
Copies to:	radsafe at list.vanderbilt.edu
Send reply to:	john cameron <jrcamero at wiscmail.wisc.edu>


Dear Otto,
        
Perhaps you have noticed that beneficial effects seems to be narrowly 
interpreted to reduction of cancer which is hard to prove because of 
the complexity of cancer and the many causes of cancer, such as 
obesity.

The strongest evidence of health benefits of radiation is the greatly 
reduced deaths from non-cancer as shown in the nuclear shipyard 
worker and the 100 -year study of British radiologists. Even the 
earliest UK radiologists (1897-1920) with a 75% increase in cancer 
had a significant decrease of deaths from non-cancer. Their longevity 
was slightly longer (NS) than their medical colleagues.

The decrease in non-cancer is easiest to understand by the public in 
terms of increased longevity. See my article:  Cameron, J.R. 
Longevity is the most appropriate measure of health effects of 
radiation,  Radiology 229, 14-16 (2003).

 http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~jrc/art_longevity.htm

The death rate from non-cancer for 28,000 nuclear shipyard workers 
with the greatest cumulative doses was 31% lower than that of the 
32,500 unexposed controls. (16 std dev or p<10^-16) This results in  
an increase of longevity of about three years.
        
The non-cancer death rate of the UK radiologists who joined a 
radiological society between 1955-1979 is 36% lower  (p<0.001) than 
that of other UK MDs. 
        
It seems to me that radiation health scientists should look at the 
real bottom line! I welcome your comments.

Best wishes,

John Cameron

You wrote: (1) The State with the lowest cancer rate has most of its 
population living very close to sea level: HAWAII

(2) Age distribution is not a factor in published cancer rates since 
they have been corrected for age distribution.


-------------------------------------
Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614 

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714  Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144

E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net 

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/