[ RadSafe ] Natural gamma rays supposedly linked to childhoodleukemia; compare aspirin toxicity

Fri Jun 29 18:09:16 CDT 2012

Hi, Bob.

The only changes I would make is to assume 365 dose of 80 mg for people taking aspirin for preventive cardiac care as we generally take one per day.  I would then assume an LD50 of 365 mg/kg (well within your range) and an 80 kg person (as valid as 70 kg).  That way all the numbers cancel out, and you wind up with half of all the people taking aspirin for their hearts die every year.  Same message as you got, but the numbers are easier for me to do in my head.

I believe you have a good example of why dose rate is at least as important as cumulative dose (and usually VASTLY more important).  I think it is a valid criticism for many documents talking about radiation and risk, though I can't say if it is on point for this paper, having only seen the shaky conclusion, and not the suspect methodology.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Cihak
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:39 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Natural gamma rays supposedly linked to childhoodleukemia; compare aspirin toxicity

It sounds like the paper in question uses the disproven "cumulative risk
hypothesis" as also disproven in the "Kerala Cancer Hypothesis." Here's
another example using aspirin as the toxin:

According to http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band106/b106-6.html,
Americans consume 34 billion aspirin tablets every year. According to
http://hospitalstay.com/2009/01/whats-so-scary-about-acetylsalicylic-acid/ ,

"more than 50 million people (or 36 percent of the adult population in the
United States) consume 10 to 20 billion aspirin tablets annually for
preventative cardiac care alone." Using the lower numbers, the total dose
for these 50 million people would be 10,000,000,000*80 mg, or 800 billion
milligrams or 800 million grams. (Incidentally, 10,000,000,000 tablets /
50,000,000 people, gives an average of 200 doses of 80 mg. per person.) 

According to 
http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/00300.htm
the human LD50 for aspirin is estimated at 357 mg/kg, a higher number than
other sources. This is a bit higher than the mouse LD50 at 250 mg./kg., and
less than half the rabbit LD50 at 1010 mg./kg. so the estimate looks like
it's adequate for this bad-case calculation. For a 70 kg. human, the LD50
would be very close to 25 g. (or 80 325 mg. tablets, the standard American
dose/tablet).  So if IF cumulative dose works here, we should have
800,000,000/25 or 32 million Americans exposed to the equivalent of the LD50
every year. As half would be dead, we should have 16 million deaths per
year. According to
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=USA+annual+death+rate ONLY 2.5 million
people die in the USA annually (apparently not counting aborted babies).

For those who believe in cumulative risk, I therefore ask, "I take 1/4 of an
aspirin tablet (81 mg.) every day to keep my blood a little thin. If I get a
headache, I take 2 tablets. If I took 100 tablets, they would kill me. Given
that Americans consume over 10 billion low-dose (80 mg.) aspirin tablets
every year (i.e., not counting the 650 mg. doses for headaches, and even
much higher daily doses for some people with arthritis), we should have well
over 16,000,000 deaths every year from aspirin poisoning. Where are the
bodies?" 

Please let me know if and where I've made mistakes in data, analysis,
grammar, etc.

Bob Cihak, MD

Robert J. Cihak, M.D.

21310 Poplar Way
Brier WA 98036
home phone: (425) 822-6884
e-mail: rjcihak at gmail.com
Board Member and Past President, Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons (AAPS), http://www.aapsonline.org
Senior Fellow and Board Member, Retired, Discovery Institute,
http://www.discovery.org
Founding Board member, Retired, Evergreen Freedom Foundation,
http://www.effwa.org

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of parthasarathy k s
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:52 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Natural gamma rays supposedly linked to childhood
leukemia, INCREASE AT 12% per mGy!!

Dear Bobby,

Next time when I go to the thorium rich beach sands of Kerala, I shall try
to count the dead bodies of those who died due to leukemia @12%per milligray
and report back to the newsgroup!Can anyone fund my journey from USA to
Kerala and back

I expected some balancing arguments from Kendall et al.

Regards
Parthasarathy

________________________________
 From: "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: Dan McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>; "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)"
<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>; Andy Howard <howard at phys.iit.edu>; "Dixon, John
E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>
Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012, 14:20
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Natural gamma rays supposedly linked to childhood
leukemia

Hi All,

I have taken a look at the new paper by G. M. Kendall et al. in the Leukemia
Journal claiming a link between natural background gamma rays and childhood
leukemia. The paper is titled "A record-based case-control study of natural
background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia [leukemia] and
other cancers in Great Britain during 1980-2006." Because of the additional
radiation-phobia-related casualties in Japan that could be promoted by this
article, I thought it to be important to take a close look at the modeling
approach used by the researchers.  Of special interest was the mathematical
form used for relative risk (RR) evaluation and what values of RR would be
expected based on the RR function used when radiation doses are
significantly greater than those from natural background.  The authors used
an exponential form for relative risk , i.e., RR = exp(alpha*dose) for the
natural background radiation effect. The authors claim that their calculated
12% excess relative risk (ERR) of childhood leukemia per mGy of cumulative
red-bone-marrow dose from natural-background-related gamma rays supports the
extrapolation of high-dose-rate risk models (e.g., based on A-bomb
survivors) to low-rate exposure.  A 12% excess relative risk per mGy after
low-dose, low-rate exposure implies a value of 0.12 per mGy for the
parameter alpha.  With this value, RR for childhood leukemia at 100 mGy
(similar to the annual dose from natural background radiation for the Kerala
coast, India) would be calculated to be RR =
exp(12) = 162,755. For a 200 mGy (20 rad) dose (similar to the annual dose
from natural background radiation in Ramsar, Iran), RR would be calculated
to be 26,489,122,130. As I think others may agree, such a derived
dose-response function for leukemia RR for children raises serious questions
about the validity of the results of the study of Kendall et al. 

Best wishes,

Bobby

B. R. Scott

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

_______________________________________________
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