[ RadSafe ] Re: [Rad_Sci_Health] RE: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable

Ted Rockwell tedrock at starpower.net
Thu Sep 7 19:35:40 CDT 2006


I haven't tried to do it, but I expect that if you plotted cancer
susceptibility vs. age, the age of the Taiwanese victims would have to be
about minus fifty.  ;-)


> From: "Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)" <jim.muckerheide at state.ma.us>
> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:20:10 -0400
> To: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>, <nbcsoc at hotmail.com>, <hflong at pacbell.net>,
> <tedrock at starpower.net>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Cc: <rad-sci-l at wpi.edu>, <Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com>
> Conversation: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
> Subject: [Rad_Sci_Health] RE: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive
> variable
> Dear Rainer,
> Please note that the paper on the Taiwan experience is not a completed epi
> study. It was produced after about 6 years during which Drs. Luan, Chen, and
> colleagues demonstrated that hormetic effects are feasible in this population.
> Their conclusions are based on simple knowledge of reported cancers (with
> activist media reporting by the "Victims Association," and anti-nuclear
> groups).  This has been suppressed (as with many other "inconvenient" studies)
> by the rad protection authorities, with Peter Chang, the virulently
> anti-nuclear MD (who is funded to indefinitely monitor many of the thousands
> of "victims," and has since set up a new "radiation protection group" -
> putting on a more recent veneer of being more "rational" :-).
> Dr. Luan, Chen et al., and friends around the world, have urged Taiwan
> government agencies and officials, through many high-level contacts, including
> several ambassadors (e.g., the U.S. and Germany) to get a formal epi study
> undertaken.  Such people have generally "promised" to get some action, and
> then disappeared in silence.  The definitive cancer data back to 1982-5, and
> data to age-adjust the population, and other demographic factors, including
> the background of the "new residents" before moving in 1982-5, is needed.
> Dr. Chang has reported epi data, e.g., at IRPA-11 2004 in Madrid.  But we have
> never seen anything actually pub'd.  He has argued that the population is
> young enough to have lower cancer rates.  We have been informed that people
> generally moved with extended families that included older parents and
> grandparents that would not have changed the age distribution enough to
> explain the discrepancy.
> Regards, Jim 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de [mailto:Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:28 PM
>> To: nbcsoc at hotmail.com; hflong at pacbell.net;
>> tedrock at starpower.net; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA); radsafe at radlab.nl
>> Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
>> Subject: AW: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
>> Dear colleague,
>> a major (if not the most important) point which
>> Gregoire&Cleland attempt to make is that we have to identify
>> the proper time scale which is characteristic for the action
>> of the defensive mechanisms undoing the damage inflicted on
>> the molecular level by radiation. The fuzziness of their
>> database allowed them just to rule out total dose (which does
>> not at all relate to time) and the average/maximum dose per
>> week. Their best guess for the proper time interval turned
>> out to be the day. So, in the spirit of their argument, dose
>> rates other than per day may not be useful as a predictor of
>> cancer risk. 
>> I concur with your characterization of the chronic Taiwan
>> residential radiation exposures as a most important data base
>> relevant for the assessment of the risk from chronic low LET
>> radiation. On the other hand, the presentation of the
>> epidemiological data (in contrast to the dosimetric) in the
>> publications which I know, e.g., Is chronic radiation an
>> effective prophylaxis against cancer? J. Am. Phys. Surg.
>> 9#1(2004)6-10 leaves too many possible and legitimate
>> questions unanswered to count as a definite account of that
>> experience. (I do not claim that you don't have answers but
>> just that you did not present them in this paper).
>> I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues will continue
>> to evaluate this data base and provide a follow-up report
>> which is less prone to valid criticism. (Any criticism if
>> offered with sufficient precision is valid.)
>> Best regards, Rainer
>> ________________________________
>> Von: yuan-chi luan [mailto:nbcsoc at hotmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 04:33
>> An: hflong at pacbell.net; tedrock at starpower.net;
>> jim.muckerheide at state.ma.us; Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
>> Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU; Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com
>> Betreff: RE: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
>> Dear Howard and all friends:
>> I think your still remember the most coincidentally
>> experiments conducted by human beings on the health effects
>> of radiation in the Taiwan Co-60 contaminated apartments
>> incident. I would like to present you the dose rate per hour,
>> per day and per year in the incident for your consideration
>> in this issue:
>> 1, The Taiwan Co-60 incident was first discovered in 1992,
>> all the apartments were built in 1981~1984, and most in 1983.
>> When a big scale searching program was conducted in 1996,
>> there were many apartments surveyed with dose rate per hour
>> in greater than 1 mSv/hr in the key positions (of course much
>> higher in 1983). The key positions are the sofa in the living
>> room, the bed in the bedroom and the stove in the kitchen or
>> the table in the study room.
>> 2, In the survey operation, the dose rate per day in the
>> apartments had been roughly calculated right away, it was
>> equivalent to dose rate per hour at sofa multiple 12hrs€Qdose
>> rate per hour at bed multiple 8 hrs€Qdose rate per hour at
>> stove or study table multiple 4hrs, and then divided the
>> doses by 24 hrs. The dose rate was always lower than 24 mSv/day.
>> 1.      In the survey operation, the dose rate per year could
>> be also calculated right away. It was equivalent to dose rate
>> per day multiple 365 days, and modified with various factors,
>> such the days would not be 365 and the radiation would decay.
>> The dose rate per year was averaged to be about 50 mSv/y, the
>> highest one was about 1000 mSv/y in 1983, then it could be
>> based for roughly determining the dose rate and the total
>> doses in different year
>> 4. The most important of the incident was the health effects
>> of the chronic radiation we observed in Taiwan Co-60 incident
>> was that the cancer mortalities of the resident was sharply
>> reduced to a few percentage of the general population, even
>> the dose rate per year and accumulated doses to quite high.
>> Best regards
>> Y.C. Luan  Senior Scientist of NuSTA and Consultant of NBC Society
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/TktRrD/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/CBYolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rad_Sci_Health/
> <*> Your email settings:
>     Individual Email | Traditional
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rad_Sci_Health/join
>     (Yahoo! ID required)
> <*> To change settings via email:
>     mailto:Rad_Sci_Health-digest at yahoogroups.com
>     mailto:Rad_Sci_Health-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     Rad_Sci_Health-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list