[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper



Isn't it interesting that some people defend the BEIR-VI committee's use of

radon data for miners, with error bars exceeding an order of magnitude, to

predict the number of lung cancer deaths in homes to three significant

figures, and then argue that raw data from such an uncomplicated situation

as these known cobalt-60 exposures, with huge discrepancies in cancer deaths

from the LNT predictions, should not be published until they have been

massaged for an indefinite period by somebody else?  You don't need any

conspiracy theory to be upset by that.



I say, let's get the data out there, and then start arguing about it.  The

data are unique.  They have existed for years.  They should be made

available to the relevant scientific community.



Ted Rockwell



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

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Philippe Duport

Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:12 AM

To: niton@mchsi.com; 'Otto G. Raabe'

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper





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/







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

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/