A clarification following John Jacobus's comments about my newsitem.

[John Cameron <jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu>]

Dear Colleagues, I don't object to John Jacobus's comments but it 

appears that he did not bother to read my letter to the BJR which was 

readily available and compare its contents to the copy of the 

original article which he has on hand. I suspect that most of the 

readers of the news release are not as well informed as John Jacobus 

is about radiation effects.  Most of the readers of the original 

article probably did not study the data in Table 2 to see the good 

news.



My letter to the BJR presented information not contained in the 

original article on British  radiologists. It is true that all the 

data I presented were in the original Berrington et al article but 

they  were ignored by the authors. They stated that there was no 

evidence that radiation had an effect on any disease other than 

cancer. They didn't mention that British radiologists who entered the 

field from 1955 to 1979 had a non-cancer death rate 36% lower (i.e., 

they lived over three years longer P<0.001) than other male MDs in 

England.  That sure looked like an effect on non-cancer to me. That 

news was not mentioned in the Aug. 25, 2001 Lancet last year because 

The Lancet commentator just read the conclusions and did not study 

Table 2 to see the health improvement. I doubt if The Lancet 

commentator will write another column pointing out the good news. (I 

sent The Lancet a copy of my letter to the BJR so they would be aware 

of the omission of the good news.) Perhaps no one wanted to criticize 

an article with Sir Richard Doll as an author.

	The authors of the 100 years of British radiologists study 

used the same trick as Matanoski in the narrative of the NSWS final 

report where she reported that the nuclear workers had not suffered 

any ill effects of radiation at "this time". She made no mention of 

their improved health.  It is inappropriate to have good news in the 

data and not mention it.

	Maybe John doesn't think that good news about radiation 

should be mentioned. Why did no other person call this good news to 

the attention of BJR readers during the last year?  it is significant 

that the authors of the article chose not to rebut my comments. If 

the British radiologists had clear health risks from radiation it 

would have made the news.

	Best wishes, John Cameron







>

>First,  none of this is his work.   (I have a copy of the British

>Radiographers study if you would like a copy to read yourself.  For one

>thing, there are no dose values associated with the study.) 

>

>Second, it is old material that has been interpreted differently by the

>original authors. (The term is data-mining when you look for some sort of

>correlation in the database that was not originally analyzed for.  Of

>course, there are many causes of bias, some which are enumerated in

>EPIDEMIOLOGY 2001;12:114-122, "Causation of Bias: The Episcope" at

>http://ipsapp002.lwwonline.com/content/getfile/64/48/19/fulltext.htm. 

>

>Third, John is not an epidemiologist, but is putting his own spin on the

>data.  (A good overview of epidemiological study can be found in

>EPIDEMIOLOGY, November 1999, Vol. 10, No. 6, "What You Should Have Learned

>about Epidemiologic Data Analysis" at

>http://ipsapp002.lwwonline.com/content/getfile/64/35/1/fulltext.htm

>

>They are good words but is it good science.  But that may not be the issue.

>If you select those articles that validate your point, ignore those articles

>that contradict your point, and keep repeating it over and over again,

>eventually it takes on a sense of truth.  This is similar to what we claim

>the anti-nuclear people are doing.

>

>Caveat Lector

>

>Have a nice weekend.

>

>-- John

>John Jacobus, MS

>Certified Health Physicist

>3050 Traymore Lane

>Bowie, MD  20715-2024

>

>E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)     

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Zack Clayton [mailto:zclayton@YAHOO.COM]

>Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:03 AM

>To: radsafe

>Subject:

>

>A public source of information from John R Cameron.  A pleasent change

>from media hysteria.

>

>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020823063221.html

>

>It's his study on low dose exposures.

>. . .

>************************************************************************

>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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



-- 

John R. Cameron (jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu)

2678 SW 14th Dr. Gainesville, FL 32608

(352) 371-9865 Fax (352) 371-9866

(winters until  about May  15)



PO Box 405, Lone Rock,WI 53556

(for UPS, etc. E2571 Porter Rd.)

(608) 583-2160; Fax (608) 583-2269

(summer: May 20, 2002- September 11,  2002)

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

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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/