[ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction

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
being discussed.  

--- "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
> 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."
> > 
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"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 
http://mail.yahoo.com 