[ RadSafe ] Confirmation of New HP Jobs! - radiation waste in home foundations for hormesis!

[howard long]

Luan, 
  The cancer study had data apparently not released to you. But you forced the Taiwan regulation establishment to publish, with your paper in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (although they misrepresented in the abstract what was in the tables and discussion).
   
  The cancer incidence data is not as impressive as the cancer mortality data you had. It does show the opposite of what they expected - surprisingly close to what Cameron found in the Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study:  highly significant statistically LESS solid cancer (p< 0.01) incidence in the exposed population. Now we need a prospective experiment to utilize Cameron's "Vitamin R".
   
  What are your comments on the regulators' and environmentalists' study?
  I do notice a high incidence of uterine cervix cancer in young women, suggesting lower socioeconomic population and, since it did not show up in your mortality data, early diagnosis and cure (public health has there, as here, done a good job with cervix cancer Traut-Papanicolau smears). So the regulators' suggestion that the less cancer was from higher socioeconomic status is not substantiated. 
   
  The dose in the apartments may at first have increased the leukemia incidence, from the looks of the data, perhaps an overdose of "Vit R"? 
   
  WHy did they not supply mortality data? Were there any more cancer deaths than the amazingly low number you reported?
  Howard Long
   
  John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:38:20 -0800 (PST)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Confirmation of New HP Jobs! - radiation waste in
home foundations for hormesis!

Dr. Long,
I assume the you did not read the entire paper and
discussion. You should not limit yourself to those
quotes you cherry-pick. As note:

"Chen et al. (2004) reported a primitive analysis on
a similar cohort population in Taiwan, while
suggesting
reduced cancer mortality. However, Chen apparently
used group analysis for their exposure, and included
only a portion of the exposed population mentioned in
this study, based only on initial preliminary
community registration by the AEC and not through
detailed registration. Their analysis did not consider
risk factors like attained age, sex, age at initial
exposure et al. No further analyses on the
exposure-dependent risks were conducted.

This study cohort was large enough to detect
statistically significant cumulative
exposure-dependent increases in various cancers in
individuals with initial exposure before age 30. . .
."

You may also what to check out Table IV.

Did YOU ask Dr. Luan what he thought of this paper? 
Yes, the world plots against you and your beliefs. 

--- howard long wrote:

> John and all,
> Taiwan regulators also perpetuate their jobs,
> instead of adapting to new knowledge, as shown
> below. 
> 
> Abstract writers propagandize, often stating the
> opposite of data and conclusions by the
> authors. Some of this may be from starting with
> false assumptions, such as that 5 rem dose of gamma
> radiation, slow rate, causes cancer. 
> 
> These quotes from the article show Luan has done
> for that cover-up attempt, what Cameron did for the
> distorted Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study.
> HP's, get with the NEW job: providing Cameron's
> "essential trace energy"!
> 
> "Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low
> dose-rate gamma radiation exposure in
> radiocontaminated buildings, 1983-2002”, Hwang, Guo
> et al, in Int J. Radiat. Biol. 8:12
> (Received 12May 2005; revised 11 Sept. 2006;
> accepted 18 Oct. 2006)
> Abstract ---
> Conclusions: The results suggest that prolonged
> low dose rate radiation exposure 
> appeared to increase the risks of developing
> certain cancers in specific subgroups of this
> population in Taiwan .” 
> 
> In that abstract, o reference to either:
> " Table 3 - All Cancers - Observed 95, Expected
> 114.9"
> or
> “Discussion
> --Compared to the reference population, the study
> population had lower incidence of all cancers
> combined,- “
> 
> John did YOU really read this confirmation of Luan
> and Cameron?
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> Dr. Long,
> I am not sure what my waistline has to do with the
> question I asked you. What do you mean by "recurring
> actions?"
> 
> Nevertheless, if you are suggesting the use of Co-60
> in building construction is a good idea, I would
> suggest that you read the following report, 
> "Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low
> dose-rate (gamma)-radiation exposure in
> radiocontaminated buildings, 1983 – 2002," in Int.
> J.
> Radiat. Biol., Vol. 82, No. 12, December 2006, pp.
> 849
> – 858.
> 
> If you would like a copy, let me know.