AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction

John Jacobus crispy_bird at
Thu Jun 29 10:09:58 CDT 2006

Thank you for the inforamtion.  To be very explicit,
is there any evidence that radiation reduces the
incidence of lung cancers in smokers?  I am not asking
about radon exposures.

--- Rainer.Facius at wrote:

> "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
> 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
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX:   +49 2203 61970
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at] 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."

"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

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list