[ RadSafe ] Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental -

[howard long]

Do you still offer to send the whole article on-line reference to Radsafe readers, John?
  My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. Any Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to hear from.  
   
  As Muckerheide also pointed out, the most significant part of the Chang-establishment-environmentalist article was its ABSENCE of dispute of Chen, Luan et al report finding only 6 total cancer deaths observed (by official records) when 126 would be expected in those ~7,271 people exposed to av 0.4 Sv (40 cSv, 40 rem, 40 rad) over 20 years .  
   
  This confirms amazing evidence for safety and effectiveness of a new treatment that I predict will  employ more HPs 20 years from now than the hundreds of new nuclear power plants in the USA then.
   
  Howard Long 

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  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 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 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/