Letters to the editor are reviewed and refereed

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

>Dear Colleagues,  Despite what John Jacobus'  said about letters to 

>the editor not being reviewed, he was wrong. Health Physics also 

>reviews letters to the editor. My letter to the editor in 1995 

>criticizing radiation protection quantities (equivalent dose and 

>effective dose) was rejected by the editor as an "attack on the 

>NCRP". It has not yet been published but it will soon be available 

>on my web page, which is part of the Dept. of Medical Physics at the 

>U. of Wisconsin-Madison web page.

	If John Jacobus had read the footnote on my letter to the 

editor of BJR he would have seen:  "Received for publication January 

16, 2002. Revision received March 27, 2002. Accepted for publication 

April 10, 2002."It was not only reviewed by the honorary editors but 

also by the four authors of the Berrington et al article I was 

commenting on. None of the authors chose to rebut my letter. I would 

say it was  reviewed.

	In the long run, my letter to the editor of BJR may be 

referenced more often than the original article because my letter 

points out the health benefits which were not only ignored but denied 

in the original article. The authors said that radiation had no 

effect on non-cancer, even though radiologists in the 1955-79 group 

had a death rate from non-cancer 36% lower than all male MDs in 

England. (P<0.001) in their table 2. Where did they think that health 

improvement came from ?

  John Jacobus wrote to me but sent it on the list server:

>"I have read your letter to the BJR.  (Actually, I have read it the first

>time you sent it to me and the previous letters that you have sent to

>different newsletters.  I guess no one else has read them, or else they

>would have been referenced by others beside yourself.)  Again, it is a

>letter, which certainly does not carry the weight of a reviewed article.  It

>carry the same impact as the "letters to the editors" we see in the local

>papers.  Because I have read this letter I thought our readers should not be

>lead into believe that is based on any proper peer review.  (I have yet to

>see a "letter to the editor" peer reviewed.)"



	I think John Jacobus should apologize to the members of 

radsafe for sending a message to the entire list that was obviously 

intended as personal message to me. He sent an earlier personal 

message to the list server addressed to "Zack" criticizing him for 

posting the news item involving my letter to BJR. It seems 

inappropriate to use of the list server in this way.

	His message addressed to me has several errors. I don't mind 

receiving criticism from colleagues but it is a courtesy to send it 

only to me. I could have explained that he is not aware of how 

scientific journals handle letters. They have higher standards than 

"local papers". I've sent a lot more letters to local papers than to 

local papers. You don't have to have any scientific qualifications to 

submit a letter about radiation risks to a local paper. I've had 

letters rejected by Health Physics and The Lancet. My first letter to 

the BJR was rejected. I resubmitted a letter that took into account 

their criticisms.



	In regard to the EDE of a person wearing a one or two badges 

during fluoroscopy, the EDE is discussed in NCRP Report No. 121 where 

the EDE is calculated based on tissue weighting factors from ICRP 

1977 and the effective dose is calculated from the revised WT values 

from  ICRP 1990 . The algorithm for calculating the equivalent dose 

effective from a single badge reading was 375% greater than the 

effective dose calculated using the 1990 WT values!  It isn't often 

one can reduce a dose so easily.  I don't know if you consider NCRP 

Reports as being "peer reviewed" - I don't. In case you wonder, I 

don't have any confidence in EDE or effective dose in the dose range 

below 0.3 Gy since there are no human data to justify any WT values 

in that dose range. There are no data to support a WR of alpha 

particles of 20 anyplace. Alphas never have an RBE higher than 10 and 

sometimes it is comparable to that of high energy photons. Robley 

Evans said the Q for radium alphas in the dial painters was about 3 

above 1,000 rads to the skeleton. There was no increase in radium 

induced osteogenic sarcoma below that skeletal dose. In other words 

it is scientifically inappropriate to suggest that most of our 

background radiation comes from radon progeny.

	Best wishes, John Cameron

( I suggest that all references to "John" on the list server include 

the family name, I don't want to be confused with John jacobus!)



-- 

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/