AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,
Yes, I knew you were referring to a different paper by
Brenner.  

The issue of how the media reports science stories is
not a new one.  When my daughter and son were majoring
in journalism, they were required to take a basic
science course, like biology.  The inherent problem is
the reporters are no more knowledgeable about science
than other members of the public.  Consequently, when
a "news" story is developed, I doubt if many reports
have any idea about the science or the uncertainties
that goes into the data and its analysis.  Consider
the questioning of "global warming," despite the fact
that the majority of science who actually do the
studies think it is a real phenomenon.  

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

> John:
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you for the pointer to your HPS "Ask the
> Experts" statement on question #4173.
> 
> Congratulations for the excellently balanced advice
> you were able to formulate!
> 
> BTW: I did not relate to the Brenner (2001) paper
> which deals with childhood risk but to the
> Berrington de Gonzales LANZET (2004) paper which
> addresses adult risks. I hold that we should
> distinguish these situations as we should keep in
> mind that CT exposures may be different from truly
> chronic irradation. 
> 
> Of course your remarks pertain to both studies, but
> - once more - the media apparently are not
> interested in bothering their consumers with such
> 'minor' qualifications. 
> 
> That would devalue the worth of one of their best
> selling merchandise - ANGST.
> 
> Kind regards, Rainer
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Fr 17.03.2006 18:35
> An: Facius, Rainer; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at;
> tom.mohaupt at wright.edu; maurysis at ev1.net
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears
> promoted by anti-nuclear Greens
> 
> 
> 
> Rainer,
> I think what you report is very typical of studies
> of
> this nature.  Sure, you can calculate that 2049
> persons in Germany might get cancer from x-ray
> exposures.  But what are the limitations of this
> work?
>  How many cancers are expected to occur every year?
> What is the uncertainty in the statistics?  (I am
> always suspecious when numbers are report with such
> accuracy, e.g., 2049, not 2050 or 2048?)
> 
> Some time ago, I wrote an answer to a person
> concerned
> about his eight-year old son having a CT scan after
> a
> head injury.  You may find my response interesting. 
> From http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q4173.html
> 
> . . .
> With regard to the Brenner, et. al. (2001) paper you
> mention, a number of points need to be made clear.
> First, the study was not based on the occurrence of
> cancers in real patients. His analysis is based on
> studies of dose distributions in patients and
> estimated cancer risks extrapolated from the doses
> to
> the various organs irradiated.
> 
> Second, the perspective risks may be overstated
> based
> on what is known about the natural cancer risks in
> children and adults. The following is from the
> conclusion:
> 
> "Although the absolute estimated risks that we have
> projected are quite high, the percentage increase in
> the cancer mortality rate over the natural
> background
> rate is very low. For example, of the approximately
> 600,000 children less than 15 years old who are
> estimated to undergo CT each year in the United
> States, approximately 140,000 will ultimately die of
> cancer. Thus, the estimated projected 500 CT-related
> deaths represents a small (approximately 0.35%)
> percentage increase over this background. This small
> estimated relative risk suggests that detection of
> an
> increased risk in an epidemiologic study would not
> be
> easy, although a recent case-control study [35] on
> the
> association between pediatric radiologic examination
> and childhood leukemia did show a significant
> elevated
> risk (linearly related to the number of
> examinations)
> compared with controls in children who received two
> or
> more diagnostic examinations (odds ratio, 1.6;
> confidence interval, 1.1-2.3)."
> 
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> > "Unfortunately, the non-scientists may not grasp
> the
> > significance of this aspect of the arguments.
> > Rather, they [only!] hear that there is a risk."
> >
> > Dear John:
> >
> > 
> >
> > You hit the nail on its head: This exactly is the
> > crux!
> >                             
> > *************************
> >
> > Combine the LNT postulate with the outright
> asinine
> > (ab-)use of collective dose as a prognostic tool
> and
> > the news greedily will distribute the horror
> stories
> > kicked off by papers like e.g.
> >
> > Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S, Risk of cancer
> > from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and
> 14
> > other countries. The Lancet 363(2004)354-351
> >
> > that in Germany 2049 persons (7587 in Japan, 5695
> in
> > the US) will contract cancer each year due to (to
> a
> > large degree unwarranted) diagnostic X-ray
> > exposures! They really did that!
> >
> > Such 'scientific' conclusions could not be
> published
> > if committees like BEIR would differentiate more
> > strictly between data and fit paramters, between
> > facts and 'model' results.
> >
> > So yes, your above remark describes the heart of
> the
> > problem. Since this appears to be unsolvable,
> isn't
> > it reasonable to expect scientific committees to
> > take into consideration the inevitable abuse of
> > their statements whenever they do not most
> > meticulously guard against it?
> >
> > Best regards, Rainer
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> > Gesendet: Mi 15.03.2006 22:52
> > An: Facius, Rainer; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at;
> > tom.mohaupt at wright.edu; maurysis at ev1.net
> > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears
> promoted
> > by anti-nuclear Greens
> >
> >
> >
> > Rainer,
> > Thanks for the reply.  If you look carefully at
> > reports such as BEIR VII, I do not believe that
> they
> > say that the risks of radiation are significant.
> > One
> > thing that they do say is that there are
> > uncertainties
> > that make a definitive statement on risks to be
> > unlikely.  This is the nature of science.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the non-scientists may not grasp
> the
> > significance of this aspect of the arguments.
> > Rather,
> > they hear that there is a risk. 
> 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil
> as those who steal from the public purse."
> Adlai Stevenson
> 
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse."
Adlai Stevenson

-- 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