Re: Any thoughts?

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

To portray the Colombia study as an "industry supported" study is
misleading.  The industry has little control over that money, it is
extracted from them and administered by a judge.  One of the principal
contributors to the study, Jan Beyea, was an open anti-nuke before he was
invited to particapate.  That doesn't mean he was biased in his work, but it
is absurd to claim that he would be inclined to ignore information that
indicated a negative health impact.  I wonder if Dr. Wing included
information on people who tasted radiation.  Whenever I went into a
relatively high radiation field I always tried the taste test, it never
worked for me.   When Dr. Wing presented his first publically noticed study
in the JAMA, he included statements that indicated that he had reached his
conclusion before he even began the study.  The Colombia study broke the
area up into small areas to avoid the problem of irregular political areas
hiding significant results.  It appears Dr. Wing has tortured the data to
get the answer he wanted.  If I remember correctly, the "downwind" area was
not the area with the highest cancer rates as shown on the map.  In
addition, the "plume" was subject to changing wind patterns and was gaseous,
so I don't understand the "fallout" concept being applied to it.  My
understanding of fallout was that it was particulate or gases captured by
rain.  Did it rain when the plume was released?  What symptoms were shown by
the scientists who flew through the plume?  Wouldn't they have gotten the
highest doses?  The areas with the highest rates appear, for the most part,
to be the more highly urbanized areas near and in Harrisburg.  Urban areas
generally have higher cancer rates, although the rural county I grew up in,
Lake County in California, is an exception.  However, no one is interested
in the county with the highest cancer rate in California because it doesn't
have a nearby nuclear power plant.

There are some replies now linked to the report website in Dr. Oakley's
posting.  I am sure some of you epidemiologists can understand them.  I
believe the population is too small and the dosemitry inadequate to  reach
any worthwhile conclusions.

Don Kosloff mailto:dkosloff@ncweb.com
Perry OH

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Oakley <aoakley@receptor.pharm.uwa.edu.au>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 8:09 AM
Subject: Any thoughts?


>
> Dear RADSAFERS,
>
> Any thoughts on the following story on Steve Wing...
>
> http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/aut97/wing.html
>
> were any of the underlying claims anout TMI substantiated??
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dr Aaron Oakley
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html