Re: Sunshine-"lower UV has higher risk of melanoma" LLNL

["Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>]

Thank you for the response, John.

1. Numbers do count. B.Cohen's study of most USA lung cancer deaths over

years (hundreds of thousands), and cleverly using error bars as "points" is

the epitomy of this.



2.Quality of data can mitigate limited numbers.

This is where statistical significance of the LLNL study by Moore et al

becomes important. Variation was minimized when education and work

start-date were included.

More exact matching erased previously suggested association of melanoma with

IONIZING RADIATION. It also reversed the positive association of melanoma

with sunshine.



I am waiting for Field's comment about his own "matched controls" -only 35%

smoked vs 95% of his lung cancer cases. True matching (rather than computer

simulations, as fail with the global warming myth) could reverse Field's

findings, also.



3. Sunshine deficiency could be shown in many ways. People feel better, have

less SAD (seasonal affective disorder), and a recent study of wound healing

shows it twice as fast with heat.  I believe a physical mechanism could be

vasodilation (pre-sunburn)



Ionizing radiation effect could also be by vasodilation. 75 rem doses to

gangrene were standard treatment 60 years ago (described by Jerry Cuttler at

DDP meetings).



Howard Long----- Original Message -----



From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

To: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>;

<rad-sci-1@wpi.edu>

Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 6:41 PM

Subject: Re: Sunshine-"lower UV has higher risk of melanoma" LLNL





> Howard,

> And what are you talking about?  I do not consider a

> single cohort study based on a total of 138

> individuals to be much of a study.  Try, for a start,

>

> May be you should be ashamed of not being able to

> checking the scientific literature adequately.  You

> find one study that "seems" to support you contention

> that 10X the sunshine is good for you, and totally

> ignore any other studies.  Actually, since the

> controls had less exposure at Site 300, it seems to me

> that sunlight at this "sunny hill" is the cause of the

> melanomas.  I also note that your comments do not

> address ionizing radiation.

>

> By the way, where do you get your idea that most

> Americans do not get enough sunshine?  Is there an

> outbreak of rickettes in adults?  (I assume that as a

> physician you know rickettes is a developmental

> disease in children.  But I could be wrong.)

>



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

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/