Re: Taiwan, cobalt-60

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Do you have a citation for the J Am Phys and Surg

article?



--- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Congratulations, Jerry, on your assist with the

> Taiwanese presentation of

> their "serendipitous experiment" in J Am Phys and

> Surg (my comments in

> another post to radsci).

> 

> The question of age difference of apt dwellers

> exposed (0.4 Sv av) and

> Taiwan pop (control) is partly answered by Fig 1,

> showing cancer /100,000

> was 80 in 1983 for gen pop, 50 in 1983 for exposed,

> but a plunge to c23 in

> 1984 and to c17 in 1985 for those irradiated!

> 

> As a non-credible epidemiologist, I doubt whether we

> could ethically devise

> a more convincing "experiment" to satisfy FDA. I

> believe we should NOW take

> this Chen,Yuan (Taiwan cancer), Cameron (NShipyard

> WS) and BCohen (USA

> County Radon vs Lung Mortality) studies to FDA as

> SUFFICIENT documentation

> of LDR safety and benefit for chronic administration

> of 0.5 to 10 rem by MDs

> and HPs with added certification.

> 

> Howard Long

> 

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>

> To: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>;

> <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>

> Cc: <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>

> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:11 AM

> Subject: Taiwan, cobalt-60

> 

> 

> > Tony Brooks indicated that the DOE might be

> persuaded to fund a proper

> study if it was headed by a credible epidemiologist.

> >

> > We thought about Dan Cruzski (spelling?), so I

> spoke with Philippe about

> this.  He will show the PBNC paper to Dan today or

> tomorrow and explore his

> interest.

> >

> > Vera and I had a lovely Chinese dinner last night

> (at the House of Hong)

> with Shu-Zheng and Jian.  Zheng mentioned that one

> of his former students (a

> resident physician) has started to provide LDI

> therapy to appropriated

> patients.  Two have already been treated.

> >

> > Jerry

> 

> > > Hi Don,

> > >

> > > A good article. Congratulations. It is

> unfortunate that you did not more

> > > specifically respond to Chang's claim that the

> population is heavily

> > > weighted to being 20-30 years old. Obviously

> this is the only real issue

> > > here. The Chen et al. group can only question

> the epidemiology without

> > > having access to the age-adjusted data. The only

> real issue for more

> than 5

> > > years has been the call for an actual

> epidemiology study!  Chang and the

> > > Taiwan government and rad protection

> establishment have not responded to

> the

> > > many formal and informal requests over many

> years, including requests

> > > through the top levels of the Taiwan government,

> to do that study (with

> > > initial assurances that something would be done,

> but then a stone wall).

> It

> > > is reasonable to question the reasons,

> including/especially such claims,

> > > after refusing access to the data or even to

> publish any age-adjusted

> data.

> > >

> > > However, when we asked about the age

> distribution effects in 1999 and

> later,

> > > Chen and Luan et al. responded that, despite our

> expectations that the

> new

> > > owners of such new residential units would tend

> be young families with

> > > children, they noted that, the residents seemed

> to reflect the Taiwanese

> > > tendency to live in extended family units, i.e.,

> including grandparents,

> so

> > > they felt it was reasonable to start with the

> assumption that the

> exposed

> > > groups would be close to the general Taiwanese

> age distribution. Your

> > > article seems to accept Chang's claim without

> recognizing that he, nor

> > > others, still provide no age-adjusted data, nor

> to question why Chang

> and

> > > the Taiwan government and rad protection

> establishment have prevented

> such a

> > > study for these many years.

> > >

> > > There is also a question about the claims of

> deaths vs. the dose

> > > reconstruction data. It is not clear why the

> substantial and costly dose

> > > reconstruction efforts that were undertaken and

> published over many

> years

> > > are simply rejected with Chang's claim that the

> doses were much less.

> Chang

> > > is an MD who has substantial funding to do

> continuing medical testing of

> the

> > > exposed residents. But Chang is an avid

> anti-nuclear campaigner, in

> addition

> > > to any bias induced to keep funding to follow

> the "victims" for their

> > > lifetime. For example, one of the seven deaths

> that Chen et al. had

> > > recognized from media claims as reported by the

> "Victim's Association"

> was a

> > > teenage boy that had died of leukemia. Chang was

> highly active in

> virulent

> > > claims in large headline articles (in the Taiwan

> English press as well

> as

> > > the Chinese press) to the effect that "this

> beautiful boy was killed by

> the

> > > horrible, callous, nuclear industry." At the

> same time, it was reported

> that

> > > the boy was not exposed in a contaminated

> residence, but that he had

> > > attended one year of school (kindergarten) in a

> building in which the

> iron

> > > bars over the windows were made of cobalt-60

> contaminated rebar. (It is

> not

> > > clear why you report a deprecating and

> unsupported comment from Chang

> about

> > > whether Chen was removed from office due to the

> contamination incident

> to

> > > question Chen's motives, but not report on

> Chang's activist actions and

> > > potentially biased motives.

> > >

> > > In the earlier list of 39 deaths (now 46)

> produced by Chang that I had

> > > distributed last year, there were no doses

> reported. Certainly the

> permanent

> > > residence of each person in a population that is

> being medically tracked

> > > (for life?) is specifically identified, and the

> doses in each residence

> > > readily known from the massive funds the Taiwan

> and Taipei governments

> have

> > > put into surveying contaminated residences. So

> if Chang has data for

> each

> > > resident (that shows that the doses are much

> less then reported by the

> > > enormous formal dose reconstruction studies) it

> is simple to provide

> that

> > > data. Again, Chen, Luan et al. have not gotten

> access to any such data.

> > >

> > > It is reasonable to expect that, since the

> exposed residents mostly have

> > > relatively low doses, most of the cancer deaths

> are in that group.

> > > Obviously, the question remains whether there is

> a dose-trend to any

> cancer

> > > deaths (or incidence).

> > >

> 

=== message truncated ===





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

""A fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and won't change the subject."  Winston Churchill



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

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

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/