[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The Ultimate Hormesis Paper
I believe that extraodinary claims require
extraordinary proof. What problems have the authors
had? It seems odd that they would have problems
acquiring the necessary data based on their
affiliations.
I certainly would like to see their work reviewed in
an appropriate journal.
--- Philippe Duport <pduport@uottawa.ca> wrote:
> 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.
> >
=====
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
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/