Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancerare not surprising

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

John,



Of course ionizing radiation could be a weak carcinogen. Then you still have

to come up with a strong carcinogen that exactly matches the observed cancer

rates. These are NOT minor statistical fluctuations. The entire eastern US

seems to have cancer rates 2 times higher than all of the prairies.



Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that this is due to a "radiation

deficiency syndrome". However, I think that the causal agent has to be more

obviously associated with geography than peoples' sugar intake. How about

humidity or a humidity related biological agent?



Whatever the agent or combination of agents is, it must reproduce this map:

http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/mapview2?direct=acccwm70

or else it can't be the cause.



Kai



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

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

To: "'Kai Kaletsch'" <eic@shaw.ca>; "Strom, Daniel J" <strom@PNL.GOV>;

"RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 8:02 AM

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

cancer are not surprising





> 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/