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

[howard long]

JJ,
  1. TOTAL death rate (not just childhood cancers, Chen, Luan) is a much more definite measure than diagnoses (The Chang paper you offer).
  2. I believe the leukemia-lymphoma diagnoses were higher, perhaps because of very high exposure early. Leukemia-lymphoma cures obviously were over 80%.
   
  Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Dr. Long,
I believe that I offered copies of the original paper
when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one to
Jim. Did you need a copy?

I think that you not only chery-picked the sentences,
but also do not understand what was written. You may
understand the differences between solid tumors and
leukemias. 

There are also differences between cancer incidents
and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was
98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have
the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) 
Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would
bias the data.

--- howard long wrote:

> 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 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.