[ RadSafe ] Nuke plants hike cancer risk: report

Thu Jun 25 11:56:12 CDT 2009

Sir,

That is not my critique, merely a note  to inform you that at least one of
your publications is being reviewed by the Radsafe group.  If it is taken
out of context, then please enter the debate through Radsafe and please
direct your comments to the individuals raising comment, not me.  But since
you have stated that you have no interest in debate, that tells me that you
are not willing to accept external critique. To quote you, “I have
absolutely no vested interest in this debate either financial or otherwise.”

However, from many years of personal knowledge of UN organizations including
the IAEA in Vienna, I can tell you that not all papers or reports are “peer
reviewed” carefully, if at all.  I was Scientific Secretary for a number of
meetings at the IAEA, and I did not have the capability to “peer review”
some of the reports, nor would that have been possible, since they were
reports directly by Member States.  So I would challenge your statement
about “High Scientific Quality” just if it comes from a UN organization.
Some of the work is excellent, some poor, but very little is truly
transparent. You pay your money and take your chances

I’ve given you the hyperlink to the Radsafe group
 you may defend your
comments, or not, as you choose.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
8, Le Buisson Sainte Anne
78860 Saint-Nom-la-Bretèche 
+33.(0).6.47.86.05.25 (Mobile - France) 

+1-505-240-6872 (Skype - New Mexico)

 <mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com>  <mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com>
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)

  _____  

From: mark lemstra [mailto:marklemstra at shaw.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 15:22
To: Dan W McCarn
Cc: ccpasask at sasktel.net
Subject: 

Dear Mr. McCarn,

It is not often that someone challenges the integrity and character of
another person without any facts.  I trust that you could have asked your
questions without attacking my integrity.

As you might know, the World Health Organization, the United Nations and
others list their non peer review yet credible publications on the Internet.
In my article I clearly state: Articles were accepted for inclusion only if
they were of high scientific quality with information coming from peer
review publications or credible sources like the World Health Organization
or the United Nations.  A quick review of the reference list will find that
only peer review publications, or articles from the WHO or UN, were used in
the report.

You list a stat reported in the newspaper and then list causes of death.
The stats listed in the newspaper are relative risks and the stats you are
citing are absolute percentages.  You are comparings apples to oranges.  In
my paper, I explain in the text that relative risks should not be
interpreted at absolute risks or attributable risks (let alone absolute
percentages).

On a final note, I have absolutely no vested interest in this debate either
financial or otherwise.  I have no conflicts of interest to declare.  I was
not involved in this debate before I wrote my paper and I will not be
involved in the debate now.  I simply wrote about the impacts of radiation
on health.  If you do not like the results, my guess is that you have a
pre-determined opinion that you are accusing me of.  The main reference I
cite in my text has over 400,000 people in the study with individual
follow-up times of 12.8 years while controlling for external factors.  This
study had 51 authors from 15 different countries with many scientists from
the nuclear industry represented.  I challenge you to find better sources to
quote from (perhaps you are aware of a study with 1 million study
participants that had a different conclusion?).

Mark Lemstra

BSc, MSc, MSc, MPH, DrSc, DrPH, PhD, PhD

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dan W <mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com>  McCarn 

To: marklemstra at shaw.ca 

Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:24 AM

Subject: You are being quoted on RadSafe...

http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

"Lemstra cited 22 articles in his report, pared down from a review of more
than 1,700 articles he found in medical databases, reference lists and on
the Internet."

“At a guess, one of the criteria use to "pare down" was whether or not the
article supported Lemstra's desired conclusion.  I would also be curious as
to how many of those that made the cut were from peer reviewed journals
versus "on the internet".”

"But in Canada, one of the 15 countries studied, reactor workers were 7.65
times more likely to die from all causes of cancer compared to
non-employees, said the report."

The Wikipedia top 5 list of death causes for humans
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_death):

Cause                               Percent 

1 Cardiovascular diseases           29.34

2 Infectious and parasitic diseases 19.12

3 Ischemic heart disease            12.64

4 Malignant neoplasms (cancers)     12.49

5 Cerebrovascular disease (Stroke)  9.66

“12.5% of all deaths from cancer, if we accept the Wikipedia numbers, then
multiply with 7.65 for the "reactor workers" (what is that, anyway) makes
95.6%. So, less than one in 20 Canadian reactor workers does NOT die from
cancer?!”

Did you publish that? Comment?

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
8, Le Buisson Sainte Anne
78860 Saint-Nom-la-Bretèche 
+33.(0).6.47.86.05.25 (Mobile - France) 

+1-505-240-6872 (Skype - New Mexico)

+353 (0) 76 602 6397  (Skype - Ireland)
 <mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com>  <mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com>
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)