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

[Jerry Cuttler]

I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased life expectancy.
I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 year increase in life expectancy.  I sent Bernie's calculation to John Cameron.
Jerry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: howard long 
  To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide 
  Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl 
  Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM
  Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality 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