[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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,
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1993/101-3/nelemans.html
http://www.unc.edu/news/newsserv/research/feb03/melanoma022103.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8053698&dopt=Abstract
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.)
--- hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net wrote:
> John J, Bill F and Radsafers,
>
> I support my assertion that 10x present sunshine
> (and ionizung
> radiation) would benefit most Americans (although >
> 100 x would harm),
> by the following:
> Workplace investigation of Increased Diagnosis of
> Malignant Melanoma
> Among Employees of Lawrence Livermore National
> Laboratory - Moore DH,
> Patterson W, HatchF, Discher D, Schneider JS,
> Bennett D Aug 1994
> UCRL-LR-106723
>
> LLNL contradicts 1984 conclusions in a case-control
> study of Austin and
> Reynolds:
> that "- 'causal associations' of the 3x melanoma
> rate were:
> 1, exposure to radioactive materials,
> 2, work at site 300 [test area on sunny hill]
> 3, exposure to volatile photographic chemicals,
> 4, presence at Pacific test site, and
> 5, chemist duties."
>
> LLNL study, "Results -Controls [69] had greater
> exposure than cases [69]
> to [1, 3, 4, 5 above, not site 300]." "Our
> matching, not A-R-s,
> included years of education and start date of
> employment."
>
> LLNL study, "A simple model that used the ability of
> the skin to tan
> after repeated exposure to sunlight and the number
> of moles larger than
> 2mm in diameter to classify subjects, resulted in
> 71% correct
> classifications."
>
> LLNL "Multifactor Results - The scoring reflected
> the fact that cases
> tended to have LOWER [italics originally] exposures
> to UV during ages
> 20-24 than controls;
> thus , low UV exposure leads to high risk of
> melanoma." [p36]
>
> I believe the "cost of melanoma from UV through the
> ozone hole "from
> Freon""
> is another bureaucracy employment promotion, like
> unreasonable ALARA.
>
> Shame on those who would deprive the public of 10 x
> the sunlight - or
> 10x the shorter wavelength, ionizing radiation! Take
> the initiative,
> HPs! You are needed to assure optimal doses of this
> "essential trace
> energy" (jcCameron@facstaff.wisc.edu)
> It may equal about 3 CT scans/year or 0.3 mrem/hr or
> 4 pCi/l radon.
> Numerous references are at jMuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu
>
> BTW, Bernie Cohen's "Risks in Perspective" from the
> DDP meeting is at J
> American Physicians and Surgeons V8#2 summer 2003 or
> blc@pitt.edu.
=====
-- 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/