[ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper

Tue Sep 6 21:51:33 CDT 2011

Bobby has twice subjected his studies to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness questioning
(disclosure: I am on that Board, as well as that of the Assoc. of American Physicians and Surgeons). True, if "right" (below) means adhering to the US Constitution and the Hippocratic Oath to put patients before gov. or insurers, we do. 

AAPS Journal also is very fussy about accuracy.  I can testify to that by having a book review in the upcoming issue. Pollycove, my classmate, has presented there research with Feinenigan on experiments showing 10 to exponent 10 stimulation of biodefences in repair of ionizing radiation
damage and greater longevity (what really sells this epidemiologist) in mice. Less cancer has also been reported there in the Taiwan apt studies, Nshipyard Worker and BCohen's vast radon and lumg cancer studies  - all neglected by politically correct Journals.

Viva vitamin R and sunshine (both, more than most Americans get but not enough to burn).

Howard Long

On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:33 PM, "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:

> Congratulations on your publication, Bobby.  In the interest of full
> disclosure, perhaps people should know that The Journal of American
> Physicians and Surgeons is not unlike some of the publications Chris
> Busby cites, in that the name does not convey the political leanings of
> the publication, though unlike those Chris cites, this one leans right
> rather than left.  
> 
> As an example, the line from your Abstract, "Projected long-term
> increase in cancer risk from low-dose exposures of down-wind populations
> is purely hypothetical, since it is based on the discredited linear
> no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis."  Attempts to finesse a rather important
> point.  I, personally, have no great confidence in LNT as an accurate
> model (and I have expressed that opinion a number of times in this
> forum), however "discredited" is, I believe, something that has not
> nearly been achieved.  I personally would love to see a set of well
> designed studies that would settle the matter one way or the other (and
> I believe it would not be in LNT's favor), but that hasn't happened,
> yet.
> 
> I took a quick look at your article, and I have a couple of comments.  I
> agree with your conclusion that barring an exceptional exposure event,
> life threatening radiation damage to workers is very low, or "unlikely".
> (I suspect there are actually a number of opportunities for exceptional
> exposure events, not just being present when a hydrogen explosion
> ruptured containment).  I suspect that the fatal cancer rate among
> workers will be well below the norm, because I expect them to be
> monitored within an inch of their lives, and so any cancers will be
> caught early.  I reserve judgment on the effect of I-131 on people who
> could not evacuate in the early days, and I also reserve judgment on
> possible lung cancers from inhaled contamination, but I suspect the
> numbers will not be large.  I agree that the cancer due to direct gamma
> exposure in the general population will be small, probably
> non-detectable, and I don't discount the possibility that it will turn
> out less than expected (supporting hormesis).  I expect fatalities to be
> less than in the unaffected population, again because of enhanced
> monitoring and early detection.  So, in general, I mostly agree with
> your conclusions.  
> 
> There are a couple of points that struck me, that you might with to muse
> on for future papers.  
> 
> "Dose thresholds are required for deterministic effects because large
> numbers of cells must be destroyed simultaneously to produce such
> effects."
> I disagree with "simultaneously".  I think a more accurate description
> would be "much faster than they can be replaced".  This actually deals
> with the dose rate issue as it relates to a given tissue.  Be that as it
> may, if cells are being destroyed faster than they can be replaced, and
> this continues long enough, then deterministic effects will occur.  If I
> my reasoning is wrong here, I would be interested in see in how.
> 
> "This is not likely after low radiation doses and is less likely when
> high doses are delivered at a low rate than when delivered at a high
> rate."
> I don't disagree, but I think this is poorly worded.  I would say
> something like, "The required large number of destroyed cells is most
> likely at a high dose and high dose-rate, less likely at a high dose and
> lower dose rate, and unlikely at a low radiation dose."
> 
> "For example, if the cell lethality probability per cell at risk (for a
> specific cell type) is 0.1 (i.e., 1 in 10 cells) at a given gamma dose,
> then the corresponding probability for simultaneously killing 1 million
> of these cells with the same dose is 0.1E1,000,000, which is essentially
> zero."
> I don't understand this.  I think you've left so much out of this for
> the sake of brevity that it has lost its meaning.  If you have
> established a risk of 0.1 per cell, then the number of cells destroyed
> is a function of the number of cells exposed, and I don't see that in
> here.  And as I mentioned above, "simultaneous" isn't necessary, just
> "faster than can be fixed".  To use an imperfect analogy, a neighborhood
> doesn't need to catch fire all at the same moment; even if the houses
> burn one at a time, if it is faster than new house are built, eventually
> the neighborhood is destroyed.  
> 
> All in all, an OK paper.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott, Bobby
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:05 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
> 
> 
> Hi All:
> 
> A link to my new paper titled "A guide to radiation hazard evaluation,
> applied to Fukushima recovery workers" follows: 
> 
> http://www.jpands.org/vol16no3/scott.pdf
> 
> The paper was just published in the Journal of American Physicians and
> Surgeons (Vol. 16, #3, pages 71-76, 2011). I thought the paper may be of
> interest to some of you.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D.
> Senior Scientist
> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
> 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
> Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************************************************
> *******
> 
> This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications
> Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to
> the named
> addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are
> not the
> intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail
> to the
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in
> error and
> that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
> e-mail is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
> sender
> by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing
> in this
> communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be
> construed as a
> legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the
> subject matter
> herein.
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu