[ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts)

[Muckerheide]

Friends,

Considering the spectrum of biological data, it seems that there is no
inherently lesser effect for younger people, except to the extent that
younger people have healthier immune functions and damage control systems so
they don¹t normally have general detriments.  A positive response is more
readily seen with supplements given to older people.

It¹s like giving vitamins to people in good health on a normal diet.  They
don¹t seem to do them any good.  But for people, young or old, that have
significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements are then readily seen as
obvious essential nutrients.

Regards, Jim

    
on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net wrote:

> 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 <mailto:hflong at pacbell.net>
>>>   
>>> To: John Jacobus <mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com>  ; 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/
>>> 
> 
>