AW: [ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk No labels please!
parthasarathy k s
ksparth at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Feb 12 20:02:10 CST 2008
Dear Dr Cohen,
It may not be appropriate to label any one like the way you did! Once in a scientific seminar, one of the"scientists" argued that "epidemiologists" are astrologers. Though many Indian scientists are scientists only in the lab and follow "astrology" to decide more serious matters such as marriage!
Some of them follow other cranky beliefs. During a solar eclipse, a few scientists who were carrying out scientific observations refused to eat biscuits offered by enterprising journalists; the superstitious do not eat during eclipse!
Regards
K.S.Parthasarathy
----- Original Message ----
From: Bernard L. Cohen <blc+ at pitt.edu>
To: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Cc: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February, 2008 2:17:57 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk
I
hope
this
does
not
sound
too
radical:
In
my
experience,
epidemiologists
are
not
*scientists*
in
the
broad
sense
of
that
term.
They
practice
a
*technology*
which
has
been
"boxed"
and
they
are
not
willing
to
think
outside
that
box.
For
any
new
ideas
or
approaches,
it
is
"their
way
or
the
highway";
they
reject
them
with
only
the
shallowest
reasoning,
or
more
commonly
ignore
them.
That
is
not
the
way
scientists
have
traditionally
operated.
If
physicists
operated
that
way,
we
would
never
have
had
quantum
theory,
relativity,
or
any
of
the
many
great
advances
of
20th
century
physics.
Their
box
has
been
successful
in
many
applications,
but
it
is
prone
to
failure
where
statistics
are
marginal
or
where
there
can
be
multiple
confounding
factors.
They
customarily
treat
the
latter
with
multiple
regression
analysis
which
is
fraught
with
dangers
--
they
call
this
"adjusting
for
confounding
factors",
factors
they
select
with
something
less
than
air-tight
reasoning.
If
2
or
3
epidemiologists
take
a
position,
a
"consensus"
forms
without
those
who
constitute
the
consensus
spending
any
time
or
thought
on
the
subject.
They
just
don't
like
to
think
outside
their
box.
They
seem
to
have
no
experience
in
doing
that.
John
Jacobus
wrote:
>
One
of
the
purposes
of
a
skeptic
is
not
so
much
to
challenge
as
to
present
what
is
unknown.
>
>
I
have
been
accussed
of
being
silent.
I
am
not
an
epidemiologist,
so
I
have
to
relie
on
those
who
are
recognized
experts.
(If
you
choose
to
ignore
the
conclusion
of
experts,
that
is
your
choice.)
The
consensus
has
been
that
there
are
no
demonstracted
effects
below
100
mSv.
Neither
harmful
or
beneficial.
All
studies
are
individual
pieces
of
a
puzzle.
To
date,
the
well-known
epidemiologists
have
reached
the
conclusion
stated
above.
Individual
studies
may
support
your
position
or
mine,
but
the
concensus
has
always
remained
the
same.
>
>
Your
uncited
comments
below
are
interesting,
but
how
do
they
fit
in
the
overall
study
of
radiation
effects?
I
have
seen
some
studies
that
do
show
negative
slopes.
We
can
all
cherry
pick
the
data
that
supports
our
positions,
but
what
do
the
experts
say?
>
>
>
>
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
wrote:
>
"Of
course,
there
is
no
proof
of
negative
excess
risk."
>
>
John:
>
>
Your
silence
regarding
several
invitations
to
name/present
what
YOU
consider
the
best
proof
of
a
positive
excess
relative
risk
for
cancer
also
supports
the
reverse
statement
(with
respect
to
your
appraisal
at
least):
>
>
"Of
course,
there
is
no
proof
of
positive
excess
risk."
>
>
(for
chronic
low
dose
exposures
up
to
around
600
mSv;
for
acute
exposures
such
as
the
ATB
survivors,
peer
reviewed
published
analyses
demonstrate
that
even
these
data
are
compatible
with
'no
effect'
up
to
about
200
mSv)
>
>
By
the
way,
you
have
been
confronted
here
with
data
plots
from
half
a
dozen
or
so
epidemiological
studies
of
human
(not
to
speak
of
animal
laboratory
experiments)
cancer
induction
(lung
cancer
comes
to
my
mind
as
well
as
the
breast
cancer
incidence
in
babies
which
have
been
treated
for
hemangioma)
which
exhibit
(sometimes
marked)
negative
slopes
in
the
initial
dose
region.
>
>
Part
of
the
discrepancy
appears
to
reside
in
what
you
are
inclined
to
accept
as
'proof'.
>
>
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:
Samstag,
26.
Januar
2008
23:09
>
An:
howard
long;
Otto
G.
Raabe;
radsafe at radlab.nl
>
Betreff:
Re:
[
RadSafe
]
Excess
relative
risk
>
>
Of
course,
there
is
no
proof
of
negative
excess
risk.
>
>
>
howard
long
wrote:
>
What
would
make
clear
in
that
formula
that
kD
is
a
NEGATIVE
excess
relative
risk
when
radiation
exposure
is
under
~20cGy
(rad),
rapid
rate,
i.e.
hormesis?
+-kD?
>
>
Howard
Long
>
>
>
>
+++++++++++++++++++
>
"If
history
teaches
any
lesson
it
is
that
no
nation
has
an
inherent
right
to
greatness.
Greatness
has
to
be
earned
and
continually
re-earned."
>
-
Norman
Augustine,
Chairman
of
the
National
Academies
Committee
>
>
--
John
>
John
Jacobus,
MS
>
Certified
Health
Physicist
>
e-mail:
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
>
---------------------------------
>
Be
a
better
friend,
newshound,
and
know-it-all
with
Yahoo!
Mobile.
Try
it
now.
>
_______________________________________________
>
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/
>
--
Bernard
L.
Cohen
Physics
Dept.,
University
of
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh,
PA
15260
Tel:
(412)624-9245
Fax:
(412)624-9163
e-mail:
blc at pitt.edu
web
site:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
_______________________________________________
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/
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list