AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Lung cancer reduction
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 29 11:24:44 CDT 2006
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
> "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
> 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
> 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 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