[ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 29 10:46:46 CDT 2006
Jim, Jim, Jim,
Volumns of material do not make science. You have
typically cherry-picked data to support you claims.
Neither you nor I are expert epidemiologist, and very
few of the people you support your positions are.
Obviously, there is a vast conspiracy against you. I
have generally concluded that any study or comment
that refutes what you believe is automatically wrong.
Research and science is based on evidence and testing.
Not on a political or personal test of "truth."
I learned many years ago the biologicl response
radiation exposure is not simplistic. It is based on
science, conditions of exposure, end-point evaluation,
etc. There is no quesitions that the LNT is a simple
"model" of dose and response. There are certainly
other models that fit other relationships. The issue
is not the LNT per se, but the misapplicaiton of it.
Personally, I have always believe that radiation
response was a sigmoidal curve. Nevertheless, it is
clear, and has been for many years, the human response
(which I try to focus on in my work) does not
demonstrate any effects below 0.1 mSv.
I continue to answer questions on exposures to medical
exams. I persent what is known and what the risks may
be. I do not put my personal spin on the answers.
I have and will continue to question statements that
are not based on fact. Again, is there proof that
radiation reduces lung cancer in smokers? I did not
ask about radon. Try and stay focused on what is
--- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)"
<Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > between the data from LSS and those from others
> > However it is recognised by the Commission that
> for a number
> > of sites, e.g., lung, there are significant
> > quoted from: 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
> > 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
> > differences in data from some of such 'opposing'
> > the attachment does not pass the moderator, I will
> provide it
> > upon request)
> > Unless you can provide reasons for ignoring these
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products.
> > 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
> > 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
> > transfer (LET) radiation.
> > Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
> > Tokarskaya Z B, Okladnikova N D, Belyaeva T D,
> Drozhko E G.
> > Multifactorial analysis of lung cancer
> > relationships for workers at the Mayak nuclear
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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 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