[ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts)

[howard long]

Yes, Jay,
  A different way of stating it it is that the dose beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows up in Ramsar, Iran data?
   
  Howard Long

Jay Caplan <uniqueproducts at comcast.net> wrote:
          The "consequences" of looking at different ages' results in this study are that we learn that children and those under age 30 should not be exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study results. 
   
    This is not cherry picking, just looking at separate results among a collection of results.

   
  A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but not new news, it has been shown before in other studies with similar exposures.
   
  Jay Caplan
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: howard long 
  To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; radsafe at radlab.nl 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM
  Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts)
  

  Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that solid cancer incidence 
  not LESS in exposed population.
   
  Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 years.
   
  Howard Long 

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are
the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of
low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient
to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you
wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever
it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in
later life?

I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate
Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as
well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you
want, but what are the consequences?


--- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)"
wrote:

> Friends, FYI.
> 
> Regards, Jim
> ===========
> 
> Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of
> all cancers for
> those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount
> (>50 mSv) over the
> years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is
> in the table on page
> 885. 
> 
> If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a
> population, it would be
> for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even
> though it ignored
> mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms
> the nuclear
> shipyard worker study results.
> 
> Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate
> Reduced 40% by Low
> Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the
> abstract.
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing
> list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have
> read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be
> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe
> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline 
rationing, beginning December 1. 

-- 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 
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/