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

Tue Jan 9 18:24:23 CST 2007

John,
  Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own?

  In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only used a one tail test, showing only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the papers, like the Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming.

  Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs.

  Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron
died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of
the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? 
Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good
enough if the results are what you want?

--- Jerry Cuttler wrote:

> 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 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 
> 
=== message truncated ===

+++++++++++++++++++
“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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 