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

[John Jacobus]

Dr. Long,

Why would cancer death incidents be better than cancer
incidents?  Because there are few deaths than
diagnoses due to better treatment?  Of because the
values fit your beliefs?  I assume that you heard the
cancer rates have also fallen in the last few years. 
But I do not think that is due to ALARA. 
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550925 (If you
would like a copy of this article, let me know.)

Your conjecture that higher leukemia rates in the
apartment dwellers is due to higher doses in the early
years is interestomg.  Does that not raise the
question the more solid tumors may be found in future
years?  That was the finding of the LSS from the
atomic bomb survivors.  

You correctly noted that I mistyped the sentence
regarding current childhood leukemia rates.  I thought
is survival rate was about 70%, but am pleased it is
80%.  And my generation was the last to be threatened
by polio. If so, this exposure population would mirror
the bomb victum study.

I was sure that you cherry-picked the sentences. 
Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear you admit it.  

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> 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. 
> > 
> >

+++++++++++++++++++
“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


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121