[ RadSafe ] formula for cancer risk from radiation
Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com
Thu Jan 10 13:55:16 CST 2008
I like the idea but it looks like it is missing the exposure window
variable. The span of time over which the exposure occurs plays into the
likely effect. i.e. 600 Rem over 24 hours = very bad. 600 Rem over 60
years = not so bad. Maybe I missed something.
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of howard long
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:35 PM
To: Bernard L. Cohen; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] formula for cancer risk from radiation
I don't understand how that equation can be correct, if there is LESS
risk of cancer with supplemental
low dose, slow dose rate radiation (hormesis).
With that formula, do I understand that R (cancer risk) must always be
MORE than R(0)
(no added exposure), with any additional exposure [1+ ]?
That is not true, if SOME added exposure LESSENS the risk of cancer,
hormesis, as in Cameron's NSWS analysis, Taiwan apt data of Luan, etc,
Alternatively, how about R = R(0) +- S (adjusted),
changing the part that made risk with supplemental exposure always more
How about S being the supplemental exposure in Gray (with you making
to decrease risk until ~20 cGy, then increase risk) ?
How factor in slow rate, the different effect over a year vs all at
How factor individual variation (like weight)?
How factor different effect on the same individual at different times
(like when malnourished)?
1, Global warming models omit water vapor (far more important than CO2).
2, Medical ttreatment is dictated by politicians (regardless of an
individual patient's problem with compliance).
3, Nuclear power is lost with over-regulation (graphed by Ted Rockwell
in his book).
Why give regulators another tool to tyrannize?
Howard Long MD MPH
----- Original Message ----
From: Bernard L. Cohen <blc+ at pitt.edu>
To: RadiatSafety <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:59:24 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
Can someone help me on this question -- please reply to blc at pitt.edu.
If rhe risk of cancer, R, is expressed as
R = R(0) [ 1 + k D ]
where R(0) is the risk with no exposure, D is the dose in Sv, and k is a
constant, what is the excess relative risk, ERR. I thought it would be
ERR = k. In that case, a finding that ERR = 1.0 / Sv would mean that the
risk is 2R(0) for an exposure of 1.0 Sv, 3 R(0) for an exposure
of 2.0 Sv, 4R(0) for a dose of 3.0 Sv, etc. But this is hard to
believe in a paper I am trying to understand. Any help on this would be
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe