[ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76mortality rate!)

[Ed Hiserodt]

Where do we sign up?

Ed Hiserodt

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of howard long
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:33 PM
To: John Jacobus; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer
(0.76mortality rate!)

Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of life (p<0.0001?)
  Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 rad/year. I would participate.
   
  Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Of course, radiation effects in older people may not
be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone
enough for the effects to be seen.

--- howard long 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 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 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/
> 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
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/