AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental -
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Fri Jan 12 11:24:11 CST 2007
John,
if you were able to properly interpret the numbers given by you, you would not claim that they prove an increased incidence, not to speak of a causal relation.
The 95% SIR confidence interval for leukaemia (all types) is (0.85, 2.12, 4.37), i.e., utterly insignificant.
For malignant lymphoma it is (1.01, 3.13, 7.29), i.e., essentially insignificant again.
If you ask professional epidemiologists, you will find a consensus that in order for an association to be considered established by such studies, the confidence interval for standard mortality or incidence ratios should exclude the value of three or at least two, i.e., the _lower_ confidence limit should be above that value. Findings below that value at best can serve as a rationale to spend money on a repetition of a study.
Kind regards, Rainer
Dr. Rainer Facius
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Aerospace Medicine
Linder Hoehe
51147 Koeln
GERMANY
Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
FAX: +49 2203 61970
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von John Jacobus
Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Januar 2007 16:16
An: radsafe
Cc: Rad Science List
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental -
Dr. Long,
Again, another typical example of cherry-picking data.
As noted in Table III
Leukemia (all-types) Observed 7; Expected 3.3
Malignant Lymphoma Observed 5; Expected 1.6
If you are unable to read the article, how can one expect to have an intelligent discussion with you?
Why do you constantly quote the incomplete data of Chen, et.al. of 2004?
--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> John Jacobus, the paper you refer to did, indeed, mislead in its
> "Conclusion", comparing its tables and discussion.
> HPs can judge for themselves:
> "Correspndence: Dr W Peter Chang, Inst. of Environmental Health
> Sciences, National Y U Med School 155, sec2 Linong St. Taipei112,
> Taiwan"
>
> Int.J. Radiat. Biol, Vol82, No.12, Dec. 2006 pp
> 849-858
> (The Environmental Health Sciences review by Chang et al of cancer
> risks in 7,271 persons exposed to 1 to 2,363 mSv gamma over 23 years),
> "ABSTRACT
> Conclusion [ in entirety],
> The results suggest that prolonged low dose radiation exposure
> appeared to increase risks of developing certain cancers in specific
> subgroups of this population in Taiwan."
>
> "Received 12 May 2005; revised 11 Sept. 2006; accepted 18 Oct.
> 2006".
>
> The opposite impression, much cancer was prevented by the radiation,
> is clear from its
>
> Table III "All cancers - Observed 95 Expected
> 114.9 "
> "Solid cancers - Observed 82 Expected 109.5" and
> "Discussion: - Compared to the reference population, the study
> population had lower incidences of all cancers combined, all cancers
> combined except leukemia and all solid cancers combined (Table III)."
>
> More seriously misleading is the complete absence of mortality
> data.
> No answer to,
> Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? by
> Chen, Luan et al on the same population, published in J Am. Phys. &
> Surg. 9:1 Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org Therein, Death
> Cause Statistics Abstract of the Health and Vital Statistics for the
> population of Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health
> showed,
> " - only two leukemia and five solid cancer deaths were observed."
> Chen et al [Luan]comment, "Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia
> and solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected after 20 years,
> in addition to a number of spontaneous cancer deaths."
>
> Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences do seem higher with
> that dose of radiation. Chang's table III shows: Observed 39, Expected
> 14.7. The absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 years of
> mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less severe and more treatable
> disease, perhaps made so by the radiation.
>
> John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate these clear
> results? Me? You? The Environmental establishment?
>
> Viva hormesis!
>
> Howard Long
>
>
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dr. Long,
> As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study,
> and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do
> not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test."
>
> Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message
> any more than it already it?
>
> --- howard long wrote:
>
> > 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 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
>
+++++++++++++++++++
"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!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.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/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list