[ RadSafe ] Re: Vitamin R : Radiation induced immune response DETERS spread of cancer

[Bernard L. Cohen]

My statement, copied here, applies to the first paper. It did not offer 
an explanation of my results other than ones that I had already 
demonstrated, in published papers, to be completely implausible. It did 
not quarrel with my domonstrations -- it simply ignored them, without 
even a reference to them. If that is the way "experts" operate, this 
field is in big trouble.
    The Van Pelt paper did not offer an explanation for my results 
consistent with linear-no threshold theory.
My statement was:.

   ---If you or anyone else can offer even a
remotely plausible 
explanation for my results other than failure  of
Linear- no threshold 
theory, please let me know so I can do an analysis.
The explanation 
would have to be specific enough for me to do an
analytical  evaluation; 
please don't obscure the issue with generalized
statements as has been 
done so often on this list.. I am willing to explore
parameters over a 
very wide range, but your explanation should specify
(or at least 
suggest) what parameters to explore. All
explanations offered to date 
have been shown to be extremely implausible.



John Jacobus wrote:

>Dr. Cohen,
>I do believe that a review of your data was published
>in the journal "Health Physics"
>
>EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONS AMONG LUNG CANCER, RADON
>EXPOSURE AND ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL-A REASSESSMENT
>OF COHEN'S COUNTY LEVEL RADON STUDY
>[Review Article]
>Health Physics: Volume 85(4) October 2003 pp 397-403 
>Van Pelt, Wesley R.*
>
>I assume that the authors are experts in this field,
>while I am not.  
>
>--- "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>John Jacobus wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I will leave Dr.
>>>Cohen to comment on the results of his work.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    ---If you or anyone else can offer even a
>>remotely plausible 
>>explanation for my results other than failure  of
>>Linear- no threshold 
>>theory, please let me know so I can do an analysis.
>>The explanation 
>>would have to be specific enough for me to do an
>>analytical  evaluation; 
>>please don't obscure the issue with generalized
>>statements as has been 
>>done so often on this list.. I am willing to explore
>>parameters over a 
>>very wide range, but your explanation should specify
>>(or at least 
>>suggest) what parameters to explore. All
>>explanations offered to date 
>>have been shown to be extremely implausible.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++
>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 
>  
>