AW: [ RadSafe ] Significant results in abstracts

Fri Oct 6 16:46:42 CDT 2006

Dear Jim:

The discussion took place a fortnight ago after my talk at the 4. Biophysikalische Arbeitstagung in Bad Schlema (the 4th only after 1941!). The first study that I was told to better forget about was Cardis et al. 1995. The second one, declared even worse, was - guess what? Cardis et al. 2005. I refrain from identifying the ICRP member. Klaus Becker will be able to do so, if he deems it appropriate. 

Best regards, Rainer

________________________________

Von: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA) [mailto:Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us]
Gesendet: Fr 06.10.2006 23:26
An: Facius, Rainer; crispy_bird at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Significant results in abstracts

Thanks Rainer,

I wanted to ask John what radiobiology journal he knew about that is not in PubMed!? 

This was true of Rad Research once-upon-a-time because it was originally a "technology" journal, in some cases with an initial letter "T" as the LC classification designator.

Its LC call number designation now is QC770 (specifically, QC770.R129).  The "Q" designates "Science."  The LoC description for "QC770-798" in the LC classification scheme is:

"QC770-798 Nuclear and particle physics. Atomic energy. Radioactivity"

The scope of the RRS included all "radiation interaction with matter" including pressure vessel embrittlement, etc. 

In addition, by having a "radiation study group" as the reviewer for proposed research, research that would/could have been of interest to immunologists, etc., including the substantial evidence of LDR health and medical benefits, did not get to relevant research interests.  So no one in immunology and other disciplines were paying much attention to the work then being done, or the proposals not being funded by the radiation reviewers.  We advised Domenici's staff in '97 that, in addition to doing additional low-dose research (that should not be limited to DOE to continue suppressing the evidence, but should include mainstream biology and medicine researchers who were/are far advanced in the biology than the "beat on cells" physics people), it is also important to break the stranglehold on radiation research proposals review by the radiation study group.  When the science research study groups were being restructured in the 1999-2000 timeframe, radiation biology and medicine was indeed being further incorporated in immunology, not just high dose work in oncology.  It would be good to understand how this is working now.

There was a desperate effort to "save" this classification, as called for in Rad Research.

Note that biology and medicine-related LC classifications are:

Subclass QH Natural history - Biology
Subclass QK Botany
Subclass QL Zoology
Subclass QM Human anatomy
Subclass QP Physiology
Subclass QR Microbiology

Also, QA is Math, QB is Astronomy, QD is Chemistry and QE is Geology.

This is a significant reason why the biology and medicine community did NOT know about results reported in Rad Research.  I don't know, but I don't think, there were other "radiobiology journals" that were still outside biology and medicine, and especially PubMed which has greatly broadened its coverage of journals in the last 10 years or so.

Anyway, Rainer, from your 'public' discussion, can you identify which papers were being referred to in your interchange that you describe below?

Regards, Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:31 PM
> To: crispy_bird at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Significant results in abstracts
>
>
> Not really, John:
>
> Of course I did read the paper including 9 papers quoted by
> Gotzsche to make sure I grasp the context. Only afterwards did I post.
>
> In doing so, I was thinking of the BEIR VII-2 committee which
> at least in 4 cases quoted (approvingly) 'momentous'
> radioepidemiological studies apparently only from reading the
> abstracts, where the text and/or the data do not sustain or
> rather contradict the claim made in the abstract.
>
> Furthermore, ALL radioepidemiological studies are covered by Pubmed.
>
> BTW: Regarding one of these studies, a member of the ICRP
> main commission remarked in a recent controversial 'public'
> discussion to me: "Forget about this study" (one which
> supported BEIR-VII and hence was distinctively endorsed by
> them) and regarding a more recent one (even more
> 'momentous'): "This one is even worse".
>
> So, I have every reason to allege that the finding of
> Gotzsche pertains to radioepidemiological studies too -
> including those claiming to uphold the LNT postulate.
>
> Kind regards, Rainer
>
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> GERMANY
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX:   +49 2203 61970
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von John Jacobus
> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Oktober 2006 17:33
> An: radsafe
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Significant results in abstracts
>
> Rainer,
> Thanks for point this article out.  However, the list or
> database that the author cited, PubMeb, is primarily medical
> articles, not radiation biology.  I assume that you would
> have understood this if you had read the article and not just
> the absract.
>
> As I had posted in the past:
> +++++++++++++++++++
> >From an article about physicians doing clinical
> studies:
>
> "It was just before an early morning meeting, and I was
> really trying to get to the bagels, but I couldn't help
> overhearing a conversation between one of my statistical
> colleagues and a surgeon.
>
> Statistician: "Oh, so you have already calculated the P value?"
>
> Surgeon: "Yes, I used multinomial logistic regression."
>
> Statistician: "Really? How did you come up with that?"
>
> Surgeon: "Well, I tried each analysis on the SPSS drop-down
> menus, and that was the one that gave the smallest P value"."
>
>
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
>
> >
> > "Significant results in abstracts are common but should
> generally be
> > disbelieved." !
> >
> > Gotzsche P C.
> > Believability of relative risks and odds in
> > abstracts: cross sectional
> > study.
> > British Medical Journal 333(2006)231-234
> >
> > Queerly, important committees or authors from a "Who is Who" in
> > radiation biology perpetuate such 'conclusions' -
> apparently without
> > even reading the article let alone looking at the data.
> >
> > Rainer
> >
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
> Dwight D. Eisenhower 
>
> -- 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/
>
>