RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are not surprising

["Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>]

Kai,

Of course, the problem is that ionizing radiation may be a weak carcinogen.





-- John

John P. Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com



The comments presented are mine and do not reflect the opinion of my

employer or spouse.





-----Original Message-----

From: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic@shaw.ca]

Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:05 AM

To: Strom, Daniel J; RadSafe

Subject: Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and

cancer are not surprising





----- Original Message -----

From: "Strom, Daniel J" <strom@pnl.gov>



...

> Strong cancer causative

> factors including diet, genetic predisposition, smoking, and lifestyle

> factors are also strongly correlated with geography...



It would be interesting to see maps of these cancer causative factors and

how they relate to actual observed cancers. Cancer incidence and geography

seem to be very strongly related.



(To me, it seems somewhat counter-intuitive to suggest that the low cancer

incidence on the prairies is due to our lifestyle. I have never considered

us simple prairie folk to be particularly health conscious. We don't all

have personal dieticians and trainers. We don't all eat only

organic-magnetized-vegetarian food. Our idea of exercise is shooting at road

signs from a moving vehicle and in some places it is even still legal to

smoke in your own home.)

. . .

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

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/