Re: [rad-sci-l] Re: Radiation hypersensitivity

[DWhitfil@KDHE.STATE.KS.US]

Good question...



I thought that from an epidemiological perspective that the population size

required to be credible/definitive would be prohibitively large at

exposures <10 rem. Am I missing something? From a practical perspective

isn't this whole argument rather pointless as it can't be proved or

disproved, which leads us back to making decisions based on conservative

(and many times arbitrary) assumptions? How would you even begin to design

such an experiment (as in you are going to need a lot of folks to

participate)?



<Dave walks away mumbling to himself "Where's the science man? Sometimes I

just don't get it...">



My opinions only



DJWhitfill





                                                                                                                             

                    Muckerheide                                                                                              

                    <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.N        To:     <rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu>                                       

                    ET>                            cc:     Dov Brickner <brickner@IN.ZAHAV.NET.IL>, Jerry Cohen              

                    Sent by:                       <jjcohen@prodigy.net>, <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>                      

                    owner-radsafe@list.vand        Subject:     Re: [rad-sci-l] Re: Radiation hypersensitivity               

                    erbilt.edu                                                                                               

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                             

                    10/15/01 07:13 PM                                                                                        

                    Please respond to                                                                                        

                    Muckerheide                                                                                              

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                             









Howard, All,



What do you consider as possible credible "definitive experiments?"



Regards, Jim

===========



> Dear Ted and other Radsafers,

> I agree that the evidence for hormesis is great.

> However, as Jane Orient noted "There has not been a definitive

experiment."

> (approx)

>

> I believe that to stop the wasteful excess precautions of the

"precautionary

> principle" used by the enviros, we'll need a reproducable, prospective

double

> blind experiment, directly applicable to the use - such as this

"HoPoCoBaL"

> (Hormesis Prevention of Cancer of Breast and Lung)

>

> Howard Long

>

> Ted Rockwell wrote:

>

>>> This hormesis demonstration proposal...

>>

>> It's good to have still further proposals to demonstrate hormesis.  But

>> until we can get people to honestly evaluate the data that already

exists,

>> it's just another drop in the ocean.  We shouldn't keep calling for new

>> studies as if no data exist already.

>>

>> We have hundreds of credible, peer-reviewed studies that unequivocally

>> maintain that they demonstrate robust, statistically significant,

replicable

>> hormesis.  No one has seriously tried to refute these studies.  To argue

>> that we should wait until hormesis "has achieved consensus" is not a

>> responsible position for professionals in the field.  Even the latest

>> HPJour, rec'd today, tries to argue for "excess cancers" in the

Chernobyl

>> emergency workers while conceding that overall mortality is

significantly

>> lower than the unirradiated controls.

>>

>> Analyses that resort to gimmicks like using the lightly-irradiated

>> population as controls in order to make the next dose groups look

>> "excessive" should be re-analyzed properly.

>>

>> Of course, data that could easily be obtained in connection with other

work

>> would be welcome.  For example, it is absolutely inexcusable to

terminate

>> the follow-up data on the remaining radium dial painters, to fail to

request

>> the full data on the Taiwanese irradiated apartment dwellers, to fail to

get

>> easily available data on radium and radon exposures in health spas, to

>> gather data on radioactivity at the biologically-thriving hot jets in

the

>> ocean, to calculate the amount of natural radioactivity being dumped

into

>> the oceans from rivers (as compared with the presumably lesser amount of

all

>> human-made radioactivity, to determine health effects from

>> medically-administered radiation, etc. etc.

>>

>> Ted Rockwell

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> rad-sci-l mailing list

>> rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu

>> http://ans.ep.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-sci-l

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> rad-sci-l mailing list

> rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu

> http://ans.ep.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-sci-l



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.









************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.