[ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!)
Jerry Cuttler
jerrycuttler at rogers.com
Wed Jan 10 22:30:14 CST 2007
I looked at the Sponsler and Cameron paper in Int. J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, and I found the following sentence in Section 4 on Page 472.
4 Discussion
The Summary of the Final Report did not mention the 24% lower SMR from all causes of the cohort (p < 10-16) compared to the controls. A 24% lower SMR implies a 2.8-year increase in average lifespan.
So I likely asked Bernie to calculate the life extension corresponding to 24% lower SMR (not a 40% reduction).
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler at rogers.com>; "howard long" <hflong at pacbell.net>; "Jay Caplan" <uniqueproducts at comcast.net>; "Muckerheide" <muckerheide at comcast.net>
Cc: "Rad Science List" <rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!)
> 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 <jerrycuttler at rogers.com> 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 <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
>>
> === 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
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list