AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,
Very true.  This paper does not answer my question
about radiation reducing lung cancer in smokers.  Did
YOU not understand what I was asking for?

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> Dear colleague,
>  
> thank you for this pointer. Of course, it does not
> address the point raised by John Jacobus, who denied
> that there might be evidence to the contrary - which
> even is acknowledged as such by the ICRP. 
>  
> Can you provide a pdf copy of your paper?
>  
> Thank you in advance, Rainer
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Jan Skowronek
> [mailto:jskowronek at ietu.katowice.pl]
> Gesendet: Di 27.06.2006 09:54
> An: Facius, Rainer; crispy_bird at yahoo.com;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction
> 
> 
> 
> P.T. Colleagues,
> 
> See: Skowronek J., Zemla B. - Epidemiology of lung
> and larynx cancers in
> coal mines in Upper Silesia - preliminary results.
> Health Physics, September
> 2003, Volume 85, no 3.
> Increased exposure to radon progeny (but still on
> the level of low doses -
> < some mSv/y)) in coal mines increases risk of lung
> and larynx cancer.
> 
> dr hab. inz. Jan SKOWRONEK
> Instytut Ekologii Terenów Uprzemyslowionych
> Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas
> ul. Kossutha 6
> 40-844 Katowice/Poland
> tel.: (+48-32) 2540164
> fax: (+48-32) 2541717
> e-mail: jskowronek at ietu.katowice.pl
> 
> -----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 1:54 PM
> 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
> 
> . . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"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