[ RadSafe ] Correcton: Only bomb exposure > 10 rad caused cancer (< prevented!)!

[howard long]

Nature Reviews (below) still have radiophobia (or commercial benefit from pretending).
   
  The bomb data quoted (part of it) mingles data < 10rad with high exposure.
   
  Public Health demands correction of this myth that low dose radiation causes cancer.
   
  Distorting with pooled data, no aspirin would be used, since high doses have been the largest poisoning cause of death in children. No iodine would be used (as in salt to prevent goiter), since the skull and crossbones on the antiseptic bottle was well deserved.
   
  Truth demands disclosure on all bomb data. Breast cancer, 
  at 1-10rad, was 34 vs 42.3 expected, although higher at doses 50 rad and above.
  This is consistent with Luan's Taiwan apartment studies, reported here and at
  www.jpands.org,   showing just 3.5 vs 116 expected cancer deaths/100,000 where
  0.4 sv/ person extra was received from radioactive cobalt in the reinforcing steel.
   
  Isn't it time for the radiation industry to lead the beneficial application of low dose radiation, instead of reinforcing false cancer fears (to perpetuate jobs?)
  1, Benefit cancer prevention with low dose exposures.
  2, Save hundreds of billions of dollars removing beneficial doses from Hanford, etc.
  3, Prevent panic from the low doses expected before now with a "dirty bomb", here!
   
  Who, but HPs to lead? When, but now?
   
  Howard Long  
  
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  >From Nature Reviews Cancer 6, 75-83 (January 2006) 
The entire article can be found at
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v6/n1/full/nrc1784.html

Perspective
Timeline: Epidemiology — identifying the causes and
preventability of cancer?

Graham A. Colditz1, Thomas A. Sellers2 and Edward
Trapido3 About the authors

Abstract: It has been almost 25 years since Doll and
Peto performed their landmark analysis of
epidemiological data to identify the causes of cancers
and possible modes of cancer prevention. Since then,
there have been many additional studies of cancer
incidence using various epidemiological techniques.
These studies revealed expanded opportunities for
cancer prevention through approaches that include
vaccination, increased physical activity, weight
control and avoidance of post-menopausal hormone
therapy.

Under "Identifying causes of cancer"

RADIATION. Resounding evidence from studies of
occupational exposure and of atomic bomb survivors has
clearly shown a dose–response relationship between
exposure to radiation and the risk of cancer30. More
recently, solar radiation has been identified as a
significant risk factor for melanoma31, with worldwide
incidence of this malignancy increasing rapidly32.
Epidemiological methods continue to be applied to
examine the potential association of other sources of
radiation with cancer risk, such as the association
between exposure to radiation or to power lines and
leukaemia, or a correlation between electromagnetic
radiation from mobile phones and brain tumours33.
Additional studies are underway to understand whether
some of the familial components of risk for tumours
such as breast cancer might be due to increased
sensitivity to radiation in individuals who carry
certain genetic defects, such as mutations in ATM
(ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRCA1 (breast cancer
1) or BRCA2 (Ref. 34). Observational epidemiological
studies have made significant contributions to our
understanding of the influence that radiation has on
cancer risk and have also provided clues into
mechanisms of cancer pathogenesis.