[ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction by Radiation

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 26 06:28:00 CDT 2006

Dr. Long,
Not being an epidemiologist, I doubt your
qualifications to comment on the work of Dr. Laun or
the late Dr. Cameron.  A low p-value does not mean the
work is relevant, only that the MATHEMATICS shows a
strong correlation.  However, it the data is
inappropriate or there are confounding factors that
bias the data, the p-value is irrelevant.  I have yet
to understand why you cannot understand this idea.  Or
possible you do not care if the information is bias as
long as it meets your believe.  

I have cited work that refuted Dr. Cameron's claims by
individuals who have looked at the Shipyard study. 
Again, I have argued with Dr. Laun and we BOTH agree
that more, relevant work needs to be funded.  

This work has nothing to do with double blind testing
of penicillin in pneumonia or smoking.  Why did you
mention double blind testing?  To confuse the

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> The paper by Luan in JAPS gives better evidence that
> radiation prevents cancer (p<0.001) than we have for
> effectiveness of most therapies in medicine. 
>   So does the Cameron analysis of NSWS. 
>   Double blind experiments were not conducted for
> penicillin in pneumonia because the effectiveness
> was so obvious, as in the above.
>   Of course stopping smoking is even better proven,
> and also has no double blind experiments..
>   Howard Long MD MPH
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   Dr. Luan,
> If you have serious concerns about the high
> incidents
> of lung cancers, I would think that you would foster
> the idea the people should stop smoking. Studies
> have
> shown the individual who stop smoking have reduced
> incidents in lung cancer. There is no evidence that
> increased exposures to radiation have done so. 
> Also, as WE discussed several years ago, your
> statements on reduction of cancers in Taiwanese
> apartment dwellers was at best an incompete report. 
> At worst, badly flawed. There has been no further
> study of these people, as opposed to the Atomic Bomb
> survivors. In your work was of limited scope. 
> Maybe this is why many professional radiation
> scientist consider this to be a "wild story."
> > yuan-chi luan wrote:
> > Dear Dr. Cohen:
> > 
> > I am glad to have read your letter to Toronto
> > Glope & mail in showing the the results of your 25
> > years studies of radon gas whether dangerous to
> > humankind, that the US population in the high
> > average radon level county, have 30% of less lung
> > cancer deaths in the low average radon level
> > counties. Therefore the EPA of US and Canada
> > governments in trying to reduce the radon
> > concentration in homes and water are really
> > unnecessary and unreasonable.. 
> > . . .

"You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor."
GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director.

-- 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 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list