[ RadSafe ] CT radiation INHIBITS cancer

Mon Jan 25 12:39:58 CST 2010

Franz,

Franz said "Are they acceptable for RADSAFE participants?"

Since you are asking.....I think you are incorrectly interpreting the term "bomb data" as being insensitive to survivors of the nuclear attacks or accidents.  It is simply identifying the data source, it is not meant to be an inhuman comment.  I do not see anything wrong with it.  Even if this were a forum frequented by the survivors of the atomic bombs, I would not consider the term "bomb data" as being insensitive to these survivors.

Why do you always feel it necessary to personally attack those with whom you do not agree?  I believe you can post your disagreement with what others have to say without being rude and offensive.  

Regards,

Anthony Santoro
Radiation Safety Officer
Chemical Waste Manager
Laboratory Safety & Environmental Health
The Rockefeller University 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Schönhofer
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:23 PM
To: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net; 'Otto Raabe'
Cc: dachsmd at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] CT radiation INHIBITS cancer

Howard,

I am a very simple radiochemist, who had due to the nuclear discussions,
especially the Chernobyl accident, the nuclear power discussions etc to
weigh into radiation protection. 

However, I cannot accept your completely wrong reasoning. "Bomb data", what
a belitteling expression for hundreds of thousands of victims!

Your unbelievably inhuman comments are for me unacceptable. Are they
acceptable for RADSAFE participants? You should be ashamed. People - and
especially those who would search help at a "family doctor" should be better
served.    	

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Gesendet: Montag, 25. Jänner 2010 17:39
An: Otto Raabe
Cc: dachsmd at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] CT radiation INHIBITS cancer

True, Otto. Statistical "Significance" is arbitrarily 95% not by chance. 

However, bomb data is the only HUMAN "experiment" available for  

high rate, low dose radiation, like CT, except CTs themselves. 

All exposed more to than 10 rad showed  more cancer, 

so "all above 1. rad" averaged in those with damaging high dose. 

Have you heard about the statistician who drowned? 

He was crossing a creek that AVERAGED  one foot depth. 

Do you concede that the 34 breast cancer deaths 

suggest benefit MORE LIKELY than HARM, from radiation 1 to 10 rad 

 -- when 42.3 were expected without exposure? 

Best regards, 

Howard Long 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Otto Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu> 
To: "HOWARD LONG" <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>, dachsmd at aol.com 
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl 
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:17:31 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] CT radiation INHIBITS cancer 

At 04:58 PM 1/22/2010, HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net wrote: 

In humans, only 32 breast cancers appeared in bomb survivors with 1 to 10
rad exposure (=1-10 CTs) where 42.3 were expected.
***************************************************************** 
THIS 32 VERSUS 42.3 IS NOT A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AND DOES
NOT DISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE IS SOME REAL RISK IN THIS RANGE. 

Overall the RERF found a highly significant 275 cases of breast cancer among
atomic bomb survivors for exposures above 1 rad (p<0.001) with an excess
relative risk near 1 per sievert (double risk at 100 rad). 

Otto 

Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP 
Center for Health & the Environment 
University of California 
One Shields Avenue 
Davis, CA 95616 
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu 
Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140 

In humans, only 32 breast cancers appeared in bomb survivors with 1 to 10
rad exposure (=1-10 CTs) where 42.3 were expected.
***************************************************************** 
THIS 32 VERSUS 42.3 IS NOT A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AND DOES
NOT DISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE IS SOME REAL RISK IN THIS RANGE. 

Overall the RERF found a highly significant 275 cases of breast cancer among
atomic bomb survivors for exposures above 1 rad (p<0.001) with an excess
relative risk near 1 per sievert (double risk at 100 rad). 

Otto 

Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP 
Center for Health & the Environment 
University of California 
One Shields Avenue 
Davis, CA 95616 
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu 
Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/