AW: [ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk

Rainer.Facius at Rainer.Facius at
Mon Jan 28 05:06:07 CST 2008

"Of course, there is no proof of negative excess risk."


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
Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
FAX:   +49 2203 61970

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at [mailto:radsafe-bounces at] Im Auftrag von John Jacobus
Gesendet: Samstag, 26. Januar 2008 23:09
An: howard long; Otto G. Raabe; radsafe at
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Excess relative risk

Of course, there is no proof of negative excess risk.  

howard long <hflong at> 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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list