AW: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does Work"

howard long hflong at
Fri Apr 21 19:01:30 CDT 2006

Pollycove and others (with far more "standing"than myself)
  have reviewed (for DDP presentations) studies"shedding doubt " on Cameron's assertions by Boice and others. They sided strongly with Cameron.
   "'Healthy worker effect" was the only serious contention. We all believe the p was far too small to invalidate conclusion of hormesis. Definite benfit came from the 0.5 rem added "essential trace element" of Cameron: ionizing radiation. 
  Also, benefit to rats and cells in studies reviewed by Pollycove and his neat explanation of biologic defense stimulation ( mind-boggling 9 orders of magnitude 
  more oxygen-caused free radicals than the radiation - stimulated defenses). This
   also confirmed hormesis.
  The one question (raised by a radsafer) which made me double check the p effectors was:
  "Could applicants with questionable health have been steered away from exposure by admitting physicians?" I believe this is possible, but not with sufficient power.
  Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at> wrote:
I would say that the Boice paper, J Radiol Prot. 2001
Dec; 21(4);400-3, detailing the limitations of the
shipyard worker study should shed doubt on Dr.
Cameron's assertions. 

--- Rainer.Facius at wrote:

> Thank you Howard, I know this paper, as well as I
> have studied to quite some degree Matanoski's
> original report.
> Yet, in the current context I was asking John
> Jacobus for references to published work
> (putatively) refuting Cameron's arguments.
> Kind regards, Rainer
> ________________________________
> Von: radsafe-bounces at im Auftrag von howard
> long
> Gesendet: Fr 21.04.2006 17:48
> An: John Jacobus; Facius, Rainer;
> jjcohen at; mike.bohan at;
> radsafe at
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's refutation of "Alara
> Does Work" 
> is the most recent and I believe , the best
> representation of Cameron's work, presented by his
> long time assistant, Sponsler.
> Howard Long
> John Jacobus wrote:
> Rainer,
> I believe that he was asked to review the shipyard
> worker study due to his expertise in dosimetry.
> 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.
> Nevertheless, the report itself can be found at
> An abstract of the report was published in Radiaton
> Research, 133, 126-127 (1993) or I can send a copy.
> A review of the study was published in J Radiol
> Prot.,
> 2001 Dec; 21(4):400-3 or I can send a copy.
> Unfortunately, I forsee that this will lead to
> another
> long debate on the LNT and hormesis. Nevertheless, I
> will try and restrict my input. I have a life beyond
> this list.
> --- Rainer.Facius at wrote:
> > John:
> >
> > Please, could you provide some references to
> > published work where the debate counter Cameron's
> > arguments has been documented.
> >
> > Also, if I remember correctly, Cameron served on
> the
> > external referee board which closely supervised
> > Matanoski's nuclear shipyard study. I find it
> > difficult to imagine that he was called without
> > quite some professional standing also in
> > epidemiology - but of course I may err here.
> >
> > Kind regards, Rainer

"A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify." 
Leo Szilard
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list