[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Letters to the editor are reviewed and refereed
Dr. Cameron,
My comment refers to the fact that letters are not peer reviewed as I
imagine original articles are. Thus, I question the scientific validity or
"weight" of a letter. I would imagine that a letter questioning a posted
article would be circulated among the authors of the posted article for
further comments. Of course, they have the right to refuse to comment.
However, you did not mention to the list that Dr. Doll had expressed his
dissent with your revelation. Would you care to tell us (or me privately)
why?
I am not familiar with epidemiological studies, but I again question if the
36% difference in non-cancer deaths is radiation-related. Were factors like
smoking taken into account? Again, the study is about an occupational title
"radiolographer," but there is not dosimetry information. I consider that
to be a significant item to correlate with cancer and non-cancer deaths. I
also believe that difference is only in one data range. How come this
profound difference does not appear in other year groupings?
The reason I wrote my original response was to let Zack and others know that
the data you reviewed was not your own work. My limited readings in
epidemiology lead me to believe that there is a lot behind the numbers
published. However, you choose to read one set of values, and carry it
beyond the scope of its content.
Despite what you say, I think you do not like to be critized or questioned.
And as you say you do not have to be an expert in a field to submit a letter
to the editor. Dr. Shockley won the Nobel Prize in physics, but I think a
number of scientists were embaressed by his position on race and
intelligence. I know the limits of my knowledge, but an willing to learn
more if I have the right teachers. As I have said, you have sent your
letter to me several times. Yet, you do not answer my questions.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cameron
Sent: 8/26/2002 6:18:05 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Letters to the editor are reviewed and refereed
>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/
************************************************************************
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/