[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
From: "Jim Nelson" <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>
> Dr. Long,
>
> What is it about Cohen's work that you find so substantial? Do you relaize
> all his work is ecologic in nature?
Just rhetorical 'name-calling.' Doesn't affect the quality of the results.
Small eco studies, even EPA's used for regs when it fits their political
agenda.
ALL radon studies are in part ecologic: individual doses aren't known.
Individuals are put into "dose groups" from inaccurate residential
measurements. All the "case-control" studies are so flawed. If they were
sufficiently large they might get consistent results, but they don't because
they're so small. They produce various inconsistent, virtually random,
results.
> Even he says it can not be used to assess lung cancer risk.
Of course they can. There are hundreds of sufficiently large, independent,
studies. Bernie chooses to make the stronger, idiot-proof, case that the
studies clearly disprove the LNT.
> These studies below have far more validity than the ecologic studies
> you support.
>
> http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/rd_review.pdf
>
> http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html
No they don't. These are small studies. Some will randomly produce negative
results. Iowa is the worst state to do a study in because it has "high"
radon, throughout the state. People with low doses at home can have high
exposure elsewhere, and vice versa. You just have to consider the statistics
(and consistency) of the results, not whether a study has an arbitrary
"name." While it can be argued that a case-control study is "better" when
the study statistics are comparable, a small case-control study, when you
don't even control the most critical reason that a case-control study is
strong, the specific knowledge/control of the individual doses, can just
border on 'junk science.'
> I understand a national pooling is also underway by Lubin and others that
> may shed more light. If you do in fact support Cohen's studies, your view
> is not shared by most epidemiologist I know.
Then you don't know many outside the LNT-funded bureaucracy. If you want to
see an actual epi analysis, see Graham Colditz's contribution to Cohen and
Colditz 1994. (Do a PubMed search on him to see his 'real' epi work.)
Unfortunately, he and other have refused to get into the "pissing contest
among pygmies" that the radon studies have become within the epi community,
and put his career at risk in the process!? (Works good to keep the
gov't-funded scientists in line.)
Jim
> Jim
>
>
>> From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net
>> Reply-To: hflong@pacbell.net
>> To: Jim Nelson <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>
>> CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>> Subject: Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article
>> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 09:48:24 -0800
>>
>> Jim, Phillippe and members of the radsafe choir,
>> Bernie Cohen's epidemiology is the best I have seen for any epideiology of
>> anything. Believe me, I am critical and want a double blind prospective
>> study.
>>
>> The importance of informing the public is immense. Many of you will see the
>> trillions of dollars of wasted effort, but I view as more important, the
>> potential benefit of you-all dosing with radiation to enhance wound healing,
>> prevent cancer, etc. I hope many of you will add your voice to the education
>> of the American Cancer Society in this letter:
>> .
>> Howard Long MD MPH, Family Doctor and Epidemiologist
>> 363 St. Mary St., Pleasanton CA, 94566
>> (925) 846-4411, Fax 4524, Page 787-0253 hflong@pacbell.net
>>
>> Harmon J. Eyre, MD
>> Executive Vice President for Research and Medical Affairs, American Cancer
>> Society
>> c/o CA –A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1599 Clifton Road NE Atlanta GA
>> 30329
>> 404-929-6824 Fax 404-3259341 www.cancer.org, e-mail: journals @cancer.org
>>
>> Is CA trustworthy? “Radon [causes lung cancer]” FrumkinH, Samet J V51:6 Nov
>> 2001
>>
>> Dear Dr Eyre,
>> “Environmental Carcinogens: This column is provided – offering reassurance
>> when patients’ fears are unfounded and focusing legitimate concern when they
>> are warranted.” (Ref 1).
>>
>> Were Frumkin and Samet “offering reassurance when patients’ fears are
>> unfounded.”? They state, “The Bottom Line: Based on extrapolation from
>> occupational studies, it is estimated that radon exposure accounts for
>> between 3,000 and 33,000 lung cancer deaths in the US each year-. This makes
>> radon the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking.”
>>
>> However, in a landmark study of over 70% of the USA population by Bernard
>> Cohen, between 1 and 6 pCi/l radon in homes was associated with 20% LESS lung
>> cancer than in homes with less radon, even after correcting for 52
>> confounding factors, like smoking! (Ref.2).
>>
>> Support is abundant for benefit of radon. Presentations by Pollycove (Ref. 3)
>> and Luckey (Ref.4) at Doctors for Disaster Preparedness yearly meetings are
>> available on tapes and CDRom from jersnav@mindspring.com. A reward of over
>> $5,000 awaits anyone who can can negate Cohen’s findings that the linear,
>> no-threshold theory (LNT) does NOT fit ionizing radiation, just as it does
>> not fit sunshine - which also seems essential in low dose.
>>
>> The reputation of your journal CA, may depend on the vigor of your correction
>> of Frumkin and Samet’s worsening of unfounded fears, contrary to your stated
>> intent..
>>
>> Sincerely, Howard Long
>>
>> References:
>> 1. FrumkinH,SametJ, Radon, CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 51:5
>> 337-348 Nov 2001
>> 2. CohenB Test of the Linear - No Threshold Theory of Radiation
>> Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products, Health Phys.68,157-174
>> (1995) and Updates and extensions to tests of the linear-no threshold theory.
>> Technology 7:657-672;2000
>> 3. PollycoveM and FeinendegenL, Biologic and Epidemiologic Foundations of
>> Radiation Hormesis, J Nucl Med 42:7,9, 2001, 76 references
>> 4. LuckeyT Radiation Hormesis crc press, 254 pp, 1018 references
************************************************************************
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.