AW: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences ofallcancers - "Environmental -

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

"I am sorry, but what selection do you think I made."

John,

you prompted me by the following request: 

"That being said, are the values for reduced cancer incidents also insignificant?"

made in your mail:
>Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com <mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com> ]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 20. Januar 2007 17:05
> An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental -

My reply 

> regarding the "reduced cancer incidences" the message of table III is equally clear.: ...
>
>all cancers: 95/114.9 -> SIR95%=(0.67, 0.83, 1.01) : non-significant
>all w/o leukaemia: 88/111.6 -> SIR95%=(0.63, 0.79, 0.97) : formally significant
>all solid cancers: 82/109.5 -> SIR95%=(0.60, 0.75, 0.93) : formally significant

was a reaction to your 'challenge' and in so far it was you who 'selected' these reduced incidences.

Thank you for the Matanoski abstract in Rad. Res., which I did not have so far. You sent me the Boice paper already previously and I concurred in a mail to you that overall it was a balanced and faithful summary of Matanoski's report - with the exception of the "healthy worker" argument which simply did not hold in the cursory way  presented. I also commented that the 'sweeping' depreciation of Matanoski's findings which you occasionally base on Boice's paper is not endorsed by his wording.


 

Regarding the remainder of your note I realize a convergence of  positions.


Kind regards, Rainer



________________________________

Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von John Jacobus
Gesendet: Mo 12.02.2007 21:51
An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences ofallcancers - "Environmental - 


Rainer,
I am sorry, but what selection do you think I made.  I
did not say that the leukemia values were significant.
 Nevertheless, they should be noted.  Are you saying
that only reduction in total cancers are significant?
It appears to me that neither set of numbers are
startling.  As you mentioned, differences of 2 to 3
times the normal incident rates are, and I agree with
that.  The small values of incident increases or
deceases should be viewed the same.  They are small
number.  Again, I do not think that people should
cherry-pick the data from a report without also citing
factors that may contradict.

Low doses of radiation delivered at low dose rates
certainly do not increase cancer or adverse risks.  I
figured that our many years ago.  I cite the RERF data
as it does demonstrate radiation risk, but it does
have its limitations and interpretation, e.g., doses
are acute.

Yes, we both agree on the need to continue the RERF
studies, and I would suggest adding the Tiawanese
study.   I have seen very few "background" studies
that have demonstated any significant results.