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

[John Jacobus]

Jim,
Maybe you should write a letter to the journal for
publication questioning the lack of mortality data. 
Writing you questions to this list will not elicit any
comments from Chang, et.al.

--- "Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)"
<Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline 
rationing, beginning December 1.   

-- John
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 
http://mail.yahoo.com