[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper
Philippe,
For those of us not familiar with the obstacles to obtaining the required
information for this study, could you provide more details?
A methods paper could be developed that describes the study population to the
extent possible, dosimetry, and proposed optimal methods for study of the
population without progressing to the step of risk analyses with existing data
and poor epidemiologic methods. I don't see how performing risk analyses with
poor data and designs furthers our understanding of the risk posed by low
level radiation exposure irregardless of whether the results suggest increased
risk or hormesis. Publishing studies with poor methodologies may either be
heuristic or result in outside investigators or funding agencies not wishing
to get involved with the project because of existing controversy.
It may be that the study population provides a rare opportunity to study the
effects of rather constant exposures of specific energies, but in my opinion
the way to proceed is to work on a descriptive paper describing the population
and scope of radiation exposure information to the fullest extent possible
along with the existing limitations and obstacles to performing a rigorous
study. The addition of proposed methods of study design (if the data were to
be made avaialble) within the paper would add to its appeal for publication.
A good place to submit such a paper would be Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology. http://www.nature.com/jea/
Rather then the existing title (because we really do not know given the
current methodology if there are beneficial effects), "The Beneficial Health
Effects of Chronic Radiation Experienced in the Incident of Co-60 Contaminated
Apartments in Taiwan." , a more approrpriate title may be-
Chronic exposure to Co-60, A Case Study in Taiwan: An Opportunity to Study
the Health Effects of Low level Radiation or an Opportunity Missed?
I do agree that this apparently unique population should be studied. The
infamous shipyard study that John Cameron often laments about had a similar
chronic exposure, but from what I can tell the exposures were much lower then
in the apartments? Also, in the the naval shipyard workers study, the
reserachers had to contend with other occupational exposures such as
asbestos.
Regards, Bill Field
> Bill,
>
> Knowing the difficulties (opposition, foot dragging?) the author have had,
> for years, in trying to obtain all the information necessary to follow
> classical study designs, why not encourage the publication of the study as
> it is, with all necessary caveats and recommendations for conducting what is
> called a "rigorous" study, based on the possibility that Chen's et al. have
> raised an interesting question and the suspicion that, should they be only
> partially right, low dose risk is not what it is claimed to be?
>
> This may encourage institutions in charge of assessing low-dose rate
> radiation risk to launch an international cooperative effort and go to the
> bottom of that question. The population is relatively well defined, medical
> records are recent, and dosimetry is relatively good (much better than in
> some expensive miner studies!). Not doing this would indicate that the said
> institutions are not interested in getting a more accurate knowledge of
> low-dose risk.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Philippe Duport
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of niton@mchsi.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:00 PM
> To: Otto G. Raabe
> Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper
>
> Otto,
>
> It is difficult to comment without seeing the details of the paper. It would
> be
> interesting to see whether or not the comparison group was at least age
> adjusted. If the investigation followed a rigorous study design, the
> authors
> should submit the paper to a credible scientific peer-reviewed journal such
> as
> the American Journal of Epidemiology, Health Physics, Radiation Research,
> etc.
> Wouldn't the easiest way to get attention for the study logically be
> submission
> to and publication in a reputable scientific journal?
>
> Regards, Bill
> ------------------------------
> R. William Field, Ph.D.
> Community of Science: http://myprofile.cos.com/Fieldrw
>
>
> > July 23, 2003
> > HPS Meeting, San Diego, CA
> >
> > At the ongoing 48th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society here in
> > San Diego, I encountered poster paper P.78 entitled "The Beneficial Health
> > Effects of Chronic Radiation Experienced in the Incident of Co-60
> > Contaminated Apartments in Taiwan." This paper has 14 authors, all
> > associated with nuclear and radiation protection organizations in Taiwan
> > including one from the National Taiwan University. The lead authors are
> > W.L. Chen and Y.C. Luan, Nuclear Sciences and Technology Association, 4th
> > F, W. 245, Sec. 3, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
> >
> > About 20 years ago 180 apartment buildings comprising about 1700
> apartments
> > were built using rebar containing Co-60 from a discarded source. It was
> > about 10 years before this incident was discovered. This paper discusses
> > the incidence of cancer and detectable genetic defects in about 10,000
> > people who lived from 9 to 20 years in these apartments. The highest
>
> > irradiated apartment had dose rates of about 0.5 Sv per year and the
> lowest
> > about 0.02 Sv per year. The paper describes dosimetric reconstruction
> > showing that the average total excess dose for the 10,000 people in the
> > study was about 0.4 Sv, while some had total doses as high as 6 Sv.
> >
> > The authors compared the approximately 10,000 people in this study with
> > published cancer mortality statistics and reported an expected incidence
> of
> > cancer in these 10,000 people of about 217 cases of cancer during the
> study
> > period. The number of cases found was only 7. This demonstrated about a
> 97%
> > reduction in cancer incidence for people living in the high radiation
> > environment of these contaminated apartment. They found a similar
> reduction
> > in "genetic defects". The authors could not find any obvious confounding
> > factors associated with their study.
> >
> > The abstract of this paper is found in a recent published HPS Journal
> > Supplement. You can write to the authors to get the whole paper.
> >
>
> > I was told by the program committee that this paper was submitted as a
> > poster to the HPS meeting held in Tampa last year. In that meeting the
> > title was "The True Health Effects of Radiation Revealed in the Incident
> of
> > Co-60 Contamination in Taiwan." Unfortunately, someone stole the whole
> > poster an hour after it was mounted last year, so few people saw it.
> >
> > The authors seem to indicate that their work is not being given the
> > attention it deserves. Many would like to disregard it as nonsencse.
> > Clearly, there should be a detailed independent scientific evaluation of
> > these data and a more complete study to verify or discredit the findings.
> > I'm not sure who would be willing to fund such a study.
> >
> > Otto
> > *****************************************************
> > Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> > Center for Health & the Environment (CHE)
> > (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
> > University of California, Davis, CA 95616
> > E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
> > Phone:(530) 752-7754, FAX:(530) 758-6140
>
> > *****************************************************
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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/