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

["Dr Christoph Hofmeyr" <chofmeyr@nnr.co.za>]

John and interested Radsafers,

Please allow me a question obliquely related to the thread:

I would like to know how to calculate the cost of a potential release

from a nuclear installation due to 

1) an accident

2) a willful attack

with respect to radiation injury off-site.  Some analysts claim this to

be the major cost component.  I am deliberately aiming the question

primarily at yourself as a fairly consistent and visible 'defender of

the RP faith', but would welcome some open discussion.  Without being

prescriptive, I might indicate that I am not basically looking for a

totally conservative method, nor for a totally optimistic one. Lengthy

answers may best be sent off-line in order to save Radsafe bandwidth.

Chris Hofmeyr

chofmeyr@nnr.co.za



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

From: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) [mailto:jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov]

Sent: 03 January 2003 03:18

To: 'Ted Rockwell'; Philippe Duport; 'Strom, Daniel J'; 'RADSAFE

Listserver (E-mail)'

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

cancer are not surprising[Scanned]





Ted,

Very true comments.  That is why I try to view the cellular biology from

the

analysis of organisms and populations, and why we should be careful in

applying scientific studies to regulations.  It is fascinating and true

that

genetic and cellular damage can be demonstrated, and may provide clues

the

genesis of cancers and other malignancies.  However, it must be

remembered

that while cells are complex, they are being experimented on in

isolation.

Frequently, the exposure risks never seem to work their way into more

complex, organizied organisms.  Reasons are probably related to latency,

cell death, etc.  To me, this is why the epidemiology data has a tough

time

detecting cancers from exposure predictions.  I think you will see the

type

of response, cellular v. epidemiological, with a lot of chemical

carcinogens.



-- 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: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@CPCUG.ORG]

Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:09 PM

To: Philippe Duport; 'Strom, Daniel J'; 'RADSAFE Listserver (E-mail)'

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

cance r are not surprising





> What I do not understand is why the "negative image" effect appears to

be

so consistent over the all USA territory.



Friends:



An even more interesting question is, why does nearly ALL low-dose

irradiation data, epidemiological, clinical, animal, plant, for alphas,

gammas, etc.,--for all living organisms, but not isolated cells with no

bodily defense support--all seem to show no deleterious health effects

and

most show beneficial effects (as stated directly in NCRP-136, as

previously

quoted here).  If this is a random, meaningless thing, why does it

consistently show the same thing?  To sustain a model that has nothing

but

vague questions to support it?



Why should we feel obligated to keep coming up with reasons to explain

away

a simple phenomenon that is widely accepted in the rest of biology?

. . .

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

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/