FW: [ RadSafe ] Confirmation of New HP Jobs! - radiation waste in homefoundations for hormesis!
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 29 07:02:23 CST 2006
I do not think that the authors say the the Chen,
et.al., paper is a bad paper, just that it is not
complete and lacks age-related cancer incidence rates.
Not focusing on mortality data only should expand our
understanding of the exposure effects. Cancer
mortality is only one end-point, and should not be the
I think that Chen, et.al., should be commended for
their work in countering the bias of media
presentation. It is similar to the "victim" of
depleted uranium, those downwind of Hanford, etc.
(Of course, the media reports on what is told based on
limited scientific knowledge, but that is an issue for
another day.) Nevertheless, the use of media reports
rather than epideiological data does limit the work of
I agree that the true test of the science will be
re-analysis of the data, and further studies as the
life span study. I doubt that this is the last we
will hear of the the exposed population, and this work
should be put in the context of what is shows and does
not show. Obviously, you are already looking to
refute the report. You charges about "keepers of the
data" is just another example of your being a
"victim" of the "rad-protection" anti-nuclear cabal.
I am sure that you will find data to cherry-pick to
support your beliefs.
--- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)"
<Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:
> 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
> 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
On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline
rationing, beginning December 1.
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the RadSafe