[ RadSafe ] Fwd: French Academie des Sciences

Mon Mar 6 23:06:20 CST 2006

Dear Dr. Muckerhide,

  True, the papers belong to last year; then we had made some brief comments.

  After reading the contents of the report from The French Academies, I sent extracts of the report criticizing the paper by Brenner et al to Prof Brenner for his reaction. I posted his reactions to Prof Tubiana. Prof Tubiana sent me a complimentary copy of the French report and  wrote  that at that point of time they are going through the full version of BIER VII; he said that they are going to respond to the points in a separate paper. When that was ready, he sent me a pdf version
  I had addressed some issues to BIER VII Chair for which I got prompt response. I am currently preparing a review article.
  On July 14, 2005,  I published an article highlighting the differences in the points of view of two scholarly academies on LNT in a multi edition Indian newspaper the Hindu. This paper is titled
  Health risks to patients and radiation workers  The Hindu July 14, 2005
  http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2005/07/14/stories/2005071400091600.htm

To many scientists,  scientific articles are not promptly available; very often they are receievd months after publication. Many journals are too expensive. Whenever there is a cash crunch journals take the first hit. At times, the decision is based on how many persons read the particluar journal! If there are only three or four regular readers, that journal is removed promptly.

  Regards
    K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D
  (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board)
  Raja Ramanna Fellow
  Department of Atomic Energy
  Room No 18
  Ground Floor, North Wing
  Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan
  Mumbai 400094
  E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk
  91+22 25555327 (O)
  91+22 25486081 (O)
  91+22 27706048 (R)
  9869016206 (mobile)

"Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU> wrote:
  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" 
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
> > 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/
_______________________________________________
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/

---------------------------------
Save time, find those important emails with search capabilities for scanning your inbox and folders. Get Yahoo! Mail