[ RadSafe ] Significant results in abstracts
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 13 16:04:48 CDT 2006
Thank you for the information. Nevertheless, my point
was that medical publications are sometimes not as
well reviewed as technical publications. I have no
way of judging what publicatons were reviewed to find
the errors in abstracts.
I was not discussing radiation biology work. I assume
you appreciate my posting that allowed you to post
your comments even if they are not germain to the
Have a good weekend.
--- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)"
<Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:
> 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
> > 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)
> > 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
> > discussion to me: "Forget about this study" (one
> > 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
> > Gotzsche pertains to radioepidemiological studies
> too -
> > including those claiming to uphold the LNT
> > 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
> > 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.
May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
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