[ RadSafe ] Fwd: French Academie des Sciences

[Muckerheide, James]

Hi John,

If you were up to date on the literature you would know that the paper is
from last year, but the Tubiana/Aurengo paper is more recent. :-)

I didn't think they were the same.  I just opened my PDF of their paper (Oct
05, but I think the issue was late coming out) and the PDF is corrupted. :-( 

There is a later brief paper by them (with D. Averbeck and Roland Masse), in
a "debate" format with a brief paper by Dave Brenner and Rainer Sachs
defending the LNT (referring to BEIR VII!?)  It was online-before-print in
Radiat. Environ. Biophys. about a month ago.

Regards, Jim 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of John Jacobus
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:29 PM
> To: Richard L. Hess; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Cc: RuthWeiner at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: French Academie des Sciences
> 
> If Ruth was subscribing to RadSafe, she would have
> know that this is an old news story that appeared a
> year ago.  I would hesitate to add that no changes
> have been initiated thus far to relax any dosimetry
> limits.
> 
> --- "Richard L. Hess" <lists at richardhess.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ruth Weiner asked me to pass this along to the list
> > as she is
> > currently not subscribed.
> >
> > Remember, Ruth is not reading RadSafe currently, so
> > if you have any
> > replies, please copy her as well as the list. Her
> > email address is
> > <mailto:ruthweiner at aol.com>ruthweiner at aol.com and
> > she is copied on
> > this message, so "reply-all" might work.
> >
> >
> ============================================================
> >
> > From: RuthWeiner at aol.com
> > Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:38:24 EST
> > Subject: French Academie des Sciences
> >
> > The Academies of Science and Medicine of France have
> > issued a joint
> > report, available on the web, that seems to me to
> > refuteonce and for
> > all the use of the linear non-threshold theory (LNT)
> > as a method of
> > predicting cancer risk at small (low) doses of
> > ionizing radiation,
> > and of predicting cancers in a population by
> > "micro-doses to
> > mega-populations."  The joint report is also found
> > in M. Tubiana and
> > A Aurengo, International Journal of Low Radiation
> > v.2, 2005, pp. 1-19.
> >
> > Some choice quotes from the report:
> >
> > "...it is highly unlikely [because of very small
> > risks] that putative
> > carcinogenic risks could be established for such
> > doses [< 100 mSv]
> > through case control studies or the follow-up of
> > cohorts, even for
> > several hundred thousands of subjects.  The power of
> > such
> > epidemiological studies would not be sufficient..."
> >
> > "A linearity observed in a study pooling together
> > tumors of all
> > types, occurring at all ages, could be only the
> > consequence of the
> > heterogeneity of the data.  It is not legitimate to
> > use an empirical
> > relationship for assessing the carcinogenic effect
> > of low doses."
> > [emphasis mine; Bill Field take note]
> >
> > "...the use of LNT in the low dose or dose rate
> > range is not
> > consistent with current radiobiological knowledge;
> > in particular the
> > changes in cellular defense mechanisms...with dose
> > and dose rate
> > raise questions about its validity for evaluating
> > the risks of a few
> > dozen mSv." [emphasis mine; a few dozen mSv is a few
> > rem]
> >
> > " the use of a linear no-threshold relationship is
> > not justified for
> > assessing by extrapolation the risk of low doses
> > from observations
> > made for doses from 0.2 to 5 Sv since this
> > extrapolation relies on
> > the concept of constant carcinogenic effect per unit
> > dose, which is
> > inconsistent with radiobiological data."
> >
> > Looks like Jim Muckerheide has been vindicated!  I
> > can remember
> > pointing out the extrapolation to my students a
> > quarter of a century
> > ago, and noting that extrapolation is always dicey.
> >
> > The report is well-documented. It doesn't pool data,
> > it's not a
> > mega-study, or ecological study, or whatever, it
> > cites different
> > researches that have elicited similar phenomena.
> >
> > All the best.
> >
> > Ruth
> >
> > Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
> > ruthweiner at aol.com
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or
> adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical
> staff."
> MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NASA administrator.
> 
> -- 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
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/