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

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,
Not to belabor the point (which we seem to be doing), 
you originally commented on the fact the
radiobiologist would not consider that differences of
2 to 3 times the normal incidence rate would not be
considered significant.  I took that to mean the
cancer incident rate.  My comment was that they would
not consider the beneficial effects would also be
considered insignificant.

I do not understant your not citing the leukemia data
in any of your posting, but I assumed that was your
bias.  I never said the data does not detail a reduced
overall cancer rate, but ignoring certain aspects of
the report is cherry-picking.  Not very scientific. 
Personally, I would like to see studies at 30 and 40
years.  

I would consider this report to be one of many that
are in the literature.  As for the Matanoski report, I
do say that if the data is questionable, should it be
cited?  If cited, they I would expect a scientist to
also note that there are questions about its validity.
 

But that is just me.


--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> "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. 
> 
> 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
“We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient — that we are only 6 percent of the world’s population; that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
-- John F. Kennedy 

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html