[ RadSafe ] Re: cancer "risk" near certain nuclear plants vs hormesis

[John Jacobus]

Dr. Long,
  I am not a bureaucrat and have proposed repeatedly that this study should be conducted.  Obviously you have forgotten those facts or choose to ignore them. I guess selective memory goes along with cherry-picking data. You can check the achives to refresh your memory.
   
   I would suggest that if you are really concerned that you petition the Dept of Energy to fund this analysis.  If you claim to have a degree in epidemiology, you might even ask for a grant to do the analysis yourself.
   
  I appreciate your worrying about my job, but I secure in what I do and earn.  I am the business of helping people understand the risks and benefits of ionizing radiation.  I certainly do have to cherry-pick the data to support my 

  I would also take to heart the old saying, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.  It seems appropriate to your believe in old data and flawed studies.  And hormesis.
  
howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
          John Jacobus and Radsafe readers,
  Analysis of incomplete data of Taiwan's CO60 contaminated apartments 
  was not the fault of Chen, Luan et al,
  but of bureaucrats like yourself, John, who restricted access to data 
  showing their jobs were unnecessary!
   
  The  3.5/116 extreme difference below could not be explained by incomplete data
  with <1/10 that effect!
   
  I, B Cohen and other "respectable epidemiologists" do indeed find it, like 
  Cohen's data on radon and lung cancer, inconsistent with the LNT that pays 
  John's salary.
   
  Howard Long


  ----- Original Message ----
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: howard long <hflong at pacbell.net>; Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:14:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Selecting one cancer "risk" near certain nuclear plants

Dr. Long is certainly correct.  Selection or bias is a "sin" in epidemiology.  So is cherry-picking data or incomplete analysis of the data, as in the Taiwan study which is so seriously flawed no respectable epidemiologist would touch it.

howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:   SELECTION = SIN (foundation of epidemiology)
Chance alone will give 5 of every 100 studies "statistical significance" (p .05 by chance alone),
close to the 37 cases where just 17 were expected, on the average. 
Would they have reported negative studies? How many were considered?

Experiment is needed. Natural experiment of Taiwan apt 0.4Sv addition from CO 60 in the steel
(hundreds of times any addition to the German dose, certainly less than its radon spa dose)
to 10,000 residents for 9-20 years, resulted in only 3.5 cancers/100,000 person -years
vs 116 expected, more likely prevention of cancer by chronic radiation. 

Did you hear the story about the statistician who drowned, while wading across a creek 
that averaged just 6" deep?

Howard Long 





+++++++++++++++++++
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Sir Winston Churchill

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.