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

Muckerheide, Jim (CDA) Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us
Thu Dec 28 23:34:37 CST 2006

Supplement re "mortality":

On the secind page there is a statement:

"Deaths amongst the study cohort were further
matched by the National Mortality Registry of
Taiwan, which had been maintained by the Bureau
of Vital Statistics in Taiwan since early 1950s. At the
end of 2002, some 7271 members (including 3461
men and 3810 women) were registered and most of
them were followed up closely."

So why no "mortality" data analysis?  They just used the mortality registry to determine "date of death" and "age at death" to terminate follow-up.

Regards, Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)
Sent: Fri 12/29/2006 12:26 AM
To: rad_sci_health at yahoogroups.com; rad-sci-l at wpi.edu
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: FW: [ RadSafe ] Confirmation of New HP Jobs! - radiation waste in homefoundations for hormesis!
Friends, FYI

Previous response by Yuan-Chi said that they will provide a complete commentary on Chang's paper.

Let's not forget that the Chen, Luan, et al. paper was NOT a definitive epi study.  It has been rather disturbing to see it continue to be reported without these essential caveats. Age adjustment alone is significant.  A complete cancer record even more so.  They did NOT take their mortality data from some limited subset of the exposed population.  As stated here by Luan and others repeatedly, they used the media-published reports that came from the "Victims Association" that was given full vent in the media to identify the "victims."

The point was that the "keepers of the data" provided NO access to the actual data, and needed to provide it to competent epi reviewers.  Chang has tried to quash this with informal claims for many years.  He has now had to provide some results.  As stated here, and I stated previously, the exposed-group cancers are LOWER than the comparison population.  There is no mortality data reported.  

We can expect a more detailed review to identify other problems, not least of which is that this study may have been conducted by the "rad protection" anti-nuclear data-suppresssors themselves.  This leaves a substantial question about whether there can be any access by any qualified epi reviewers to the population data!?  (E.g., how was the comparison population selected?  how was age-adjustment handled? etc.)

The fact that there is no mortality data is very telling to Chang's weak position.

His blatant misrepresentation of the Chen et al. paper also discounts it by claiming "bad results" from a "partial" and "poor" epi study.  (It is interesting that his comments on this paper is the only use of "mortality" in the paper (except for a couple of refs :-)

Regards, Jim Muckerheide

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of howard long
Sent: Thu 12/28/2006 8:21 PM
To: yuan-chi luan; radsafe at radlab.nl; Lawrence Huntoon; Otto G. Raabe; knezovich1 at llnl.gov; lewhelgeson at helge.com; myron pollycove
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Confirmation of New HP Jobs! - radiation waste in homefoundations for hormesis!
  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
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.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list