[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The "right" answer
John,
When citing a reference to confirm a point you are trying to make, it is
a good idea to read it carefully to assure that it really says what you
think it says. My original inquiry (see below) related to whether there had
been any technical criticism of the data sources or Biostatistical
methodology in the NWNS. Rather than finding fault, the Boice article you
cited actually praised this epidemiological study for its care, attention to
detail, and "high quality of research".
The only problems Boice found with the study were no healthy worker
effect found, limited data size, and that generally the results did not
seem to agree with his preconceptions. These are hardly criticisms, unless
one believes the researchers should have found things that simply were not
there. From the Boice review, I get the impression that Matinoski and her
coworkers did as well as possible with the information available to them.
Nonetheless, despite any shortcomings the NWNS may have had, its
results are more than sufficient to cast serious doubt on use of LNT as a
basis for radiation exposure standards.
The absolutely perfect epidemiological study has yet to be performed.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>
To: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>; Jerry Cohen
<jjcohen@prodigy.net>; <tedrock@cpcug.org>; Muckerheide
<muckerheide@comcast.net>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; Dr. Otto Raabe
<ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>; <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: The "right" answer
> Jim,
> If you read the whole exchange, Jerry said that he
> thought the NSNW study was ignored and questioned what
> criticisms epidemioloists had with it. I pointed him
> to some links that would show him that there were
> legitimate questions about the study.
>
> You really should take time to understand the issue
> under discussions before questioning my lack of
> understanding of science.
>
> I hope you find time in your busy schedule to read
> some of the comments offered by Dr. John Boice, an
> epidemiologist. The original was sent by Bill Fields,
> but you may not have seen it.
>
> --- Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu> wrote:
> > Sorry about the delay, too much backlog :-)
> >
> > You say, "it was cited in NCRP-136 and ON THIS
> > LIST." I guess that seems
> > consistent with your concept of science.
> >
> > But NCRP told Congress re NCRP-136 and other reviews
> > 'this is a high
> > quality study' and 'it's unfortunate that this study
> > has never been
> > pub'd, so it's not accessible' and 'it hampers our
> > ability to conduct a
> > critical evaluation' etc. etc. Then of course they
> > dissemble about the
> > "inability to explain" why exposed workers have less
> > cancer than
> > unexposed workers. It's simple: biological responses
> > to LDR induce the
> > specific immune cells and molecules, enzymes,
> > proteins and genes, etc.,
> > that enhance immune competence, improve health and
> > prevent and
> > successfully treat infections, inflammatory diseases
> > and cancers. This
> > of course terrifies EPA, NRC, DOE, along with FDA,
> > etc.
> >
> > Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> > ========================
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:13 AM
> > > To: Jerry Cohen; tedrock@cpcug.org; Muckerheide;
> > > radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; Dr. Otto Raabe;
> > rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU
> > > Cc: Jim Muckerheide
> > > Subject: Re: The "right" answer
> > >
> > > Oh, we have been down this road before. I doubt
> > that
> > > the NNSW study was really ignored. It was cited
> > in
> > > NCRP 136, and has been cited on this list server
> > many
> > > times. You can certain start with the following,
> > and
> > > follow the treads.
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0302/msg00087.html
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0301/msg00180.html
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9704/msg00530.html
> > >
> > > Just to be clear, I never associated you with the
> > "LDR
> > > fringe."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> . . .
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > > Interesting--- I was my understanding that
> > the
> > > > NSNW study has been
> > > > largely ignored, unacknowledged, and not
> > considered
> > > > in radiation
> > > > policy development, but I was unaware that it
> > had
> > > > been "questioned"
> > > > by epidemiologists. What aspect of the study was
> > > > questioned: data
> > > > sources, methodology, calculations, or what?
> > > > I know that it is relatively easy to
> > discredit
> > > > any epidemiological
> > > > study (if all else fails, one can always cite
> > > > unknown unbounded
> > > > confounding factors), but have seen no such
> > > > critiques of the NSNW
> > > > study. Specifically, what was said to be wrong
> > with
> > > > that study?
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
> > > -- 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
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> -- 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/