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

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

"Biologic and Epidemiologic Foundations of Radiation Hormesis" my

classmate, Myron Pollycove PhD MD of the NRC is a tape  from Doctors for

Disaster Preparedness in Las Vegas 7/14/01. It is available, as is video

with the many slides, from jersnav@mindspring.com. I commend it to you

all.



Howard Long



Dr Christoph Hofmeyr wrote:

> 

> 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/

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

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/