[ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction

[Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)]

Hi Rainer,

John has been given voluminous data over the years that he simply ignores or misrepresents, just as he does with the NSWS.  Maybe he's trying to follow the career path of so many others in establishing his qualifications to be selected for appointment by the NCRP and/or ICRP. :-)

There are hundreds of competent medical papers on the application of radon to medical and health benefits, as well as numerous studies showing high radon dose populations with significantly lower lung cancer.  Both NCRP and ICRP Reports have also stated that population studies show negative correlations with dose that are incompatible with the LNT. 

When you send the attachment privately, please include me! :-)

Regards, Jim 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl 
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 7:54 AM
> To: crispy_bird at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction
> 
> 
> "There is no evidence that increased exposures to radiation 
> have done so [reduced incidence of lung cancer]."
> 
> Dear John:
> 
> Of course, whether or not your above statement holds, depends 
> somewhat on what you consider "evidence". Regarding lung 
> cancer, even the ICRP concedes that the [LNT] atomic bomb 
> survivor risk estimates do NOT fit into the picture outlined 
> by epidemiological data from truly chronic low dose rate exposures: 
> 
> "For cancers at some sites there is reasonable compatibility 
> between the data from LSS and those from others sources. 
> However it is recognised by the Commission that for a number 
> of sites, e.g., lung, there are significant differences."
> 
> quoted from: 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
> COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION. Draft for 
> consultation. §(104) p. 30 and once more in annex A, (A13) p. 67)
> 
> I attach a PDF file with 6 diagrams showing such significant 
> differences in data from some of such 'opposing' studies.(If 
> the attachment does not pass the moderator, I will provide it 
> upon request)
> 
> Unless you can provide reasons for ignoring these findings, 
> my interpretation of these data falsifies your above statement.
> 
> Kind regards, Rainer
> 
> Sources for the diagrams in the attachment:
> 
> Bogen K T.
> Mechanistic model predicts a U-shaped relation of radon 
> exposure to lung cancer risk reflected in combined 
> occupational and US residential data. 
> Human and Experimental Toxicology 17(1998)691-696
> 
> Fleck C M, Schöllnberger H, Kottbauer M M, Dockal T, Prüfert U
> Modeling radioprotective mechanisms in the dose effect 
> relation at low doses and low 
> dose rates of ionizing radiation.
> Mathematical Biosciences 155(1999)13-44
> (Fleck et al. and also Bogen successfully model different 
> sophisticated cellular models (sophisticated in contrast to 
> the petty LNT postulate) to own data or to data from Cohen B 
> L, Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation 
> carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health 
> Physics 68#2(1995)157-174)
> 
> Cardis E, Gilbert E S, Carpenter L, Howe G, Kato I, Armstrong 
> B K, Beral V, Cowper G, Douglas A, Fix J, Fry S A, Kaldor J, 
> Lavé C, Salmon L, Smith P G, Voelz G L, Wiggs L D.
> Effects of low doses and dose rates of external ionizing 
> radiation: Cancer mortality among nuclear industry workers in 
> three countries.
> Radiation Research 142(1995)117-132
> 
> Rossi H H, Zaider M
> Radiogenic lung cancer: the effects of low linear energy 
> transfer (LET) radiation.
> Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 36(1997)85-88
> 
> Tokarskaya Z B, Okladnikova N D, Belyaeva T D, Drozhko E G.
> Multifactorial analysis of lung cancer dose-response 
> relationships for workers at the Mayak nuclear enterprise.
> Health Physics 73#6(1997)899-905 
> 
> 
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> GERMANY
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX:   +49 2203 61970
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl 
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag > von John 
> Jacobus
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Juni 2006 19:31
> An: radsafe
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction
> 
> 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."
>