Re: Less lung ca @ 4.0 pCi/L home radon than @ 1.0 pCi/L

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

Harry,

I agree that prescribing radon ONLY from BCohen data would be irresponsble.



Muckerheide has a huge file on line supporting Luckey's 10 year old book,

"Radiation Hormesis".



I will try to persuade DDP's Exec. Dir to arrange a debate, using slide

presentations of data, at a DDP meeting, perhaps, "Radon Supplement For

Homes With < 2 pCi/L".- if you can persuade Lubin or others you mention to

defend their positions. First read the BCohen response to Lubin:  "--See

items #9, #3, and #1 on my web site, www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc"

I think those you mention may wish not to subject their presentations to

such scrutiy.



Many HPs should be interested in attending and questioning debaters like

BCohen, Pollycove, Muckerheide  vs  Lubin et al



Howard Long



Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 4:01 PM

Subject: Re: Less lung ca @ 4.0 pCi/L home radon than @ 1.0 pCi/L





> Dr. Long,

>

> If one weighs the opinion of "notoriously critical scientist" representing

the DPP verses the scientific opinions of Drs. Van Pelt, Lubin, Puskin,

Field, Darby, Doll, Goldsmith, Archer, Smith, the NCRP and many others

concerning the validity of Dr. Cohen's radon findings - I believe I will go

with the latter.  The thought of giving people extra radiation for hormetic

reasons based on Dr. Cohen's studies is professionally irresponsible as a

physician.

>

> I hope the people who monitor this list understand that your views do not

represent the views of a lot of radiation safety professionals who depend on

this list for information that helps improve our ability to reduce needless

radiation exposure.

>

>

>

>

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

> Correction - 4.0, not 0.4, pCi/L, below. Thanks, Harry.

>

> Pollycove and B Cohen submitted axiom-changing data to evaluation by

> notoriously critical scientists at DDP meetings. It is available through

> www.oism/DDP.  The mechanism seems to be stimulation of biologic defenses,

> for which extensive data is presented.

>

> Pollycove and B Cohen should see this post, and I hope will reference

papers

> with data that should change what you believe is the opinion of."most

> mainstream scientists".

>

> I am convinced, as FDA should be, that administration of home radon to

> 2.0-4.0 pCi/L

> and gamma of 0.5- 5 rem (cSV/yr) would benefit longevity and cancer

> resistance of most Americans.

>

> Fast dose rate LDR may be also desireable for prevention, if fewer cancers

> occur, as suggested by the original post on this thread.  Cuttler promotes

> fast dose rate LDR for treatment (gangrene, bursitis, etc.) It may be that

> slow dose rate is better for some situations, with 1/20 the cancer and

1/10

> fetal abnormalities expected from Taiwan apartment CO60 steel, av 40 rem,

> cSv, over about10 years (Chen,Luan,  Is Chronic Radiation an Effective

> Prophylaxis Against Cancer, JAPS V1 #1 2004, e ref elsewhere on Radsafe

> list). Also a gamma source under mattress, >0.5 rem over 5 years may be

> convenient (Cameron).

>

> Many HPs may wish to specialize in administration of  LDR, because it is

> safer and more effective than most medicines we physicians now prescribe.

> ALARA background seems learn benefit while avoiding harm.

>

> Howard Long

>

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

> From: "Harry Hinks" <Miller@nukeworker.com>

> To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Cc: <rad-sci-1@ans.ep.wisc.edu>

> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 9:58 AM

> Subject: Re: Low-level Rn exposure and lung cancer

>

>

> > Dr. Long,

> >

> > I don't understand your post.  What are you talking about?  Is this some

> type of medical short hand?  Do you mean 4 pCi/L rather than what you

wrote?

> What is this bizzare reference to Pollycove.

> >

> > I thought Dr. Cohen's suggestions that radon is good for you has been

> widely criticized by epidemiologist,the NCRP, and most mainstream

scientist.

> From people I talk to in the field, most can not understand how alpha

> exposure to the lung would be protective of cancer in other areas of the

> body.  Please explain the mechanism.  Obviously, it is well documented

that

> radon casues lung cancer. Wes Van Pelt showed just recently in the HPJ

that

> half of the inverse association could be explained by altitude.  Others

have

> said it is due to poor smoking information.

> >

> > I think you are doing more harm than good by telling people they should

> increase their radon exposure. Does anyone know the dose to the bronchial

> epithelial cells from an average exposure of 4 pCi/L and what effective

dose

> that translates to?

> >

> > --------------------------------------

> >

> > Dr Long" <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > Is dose rate range for administration of LDR partly defined by this?

> > I hope HPs with added certification will soon be administering it.

> >

> > Could the more easily given (in medical office), quicker LDR actually be

> > better with radon than longer exposure, as for gamma, favored by Luan

from

> > Taipei experience?

> >

> > The U or J shaped curve in B Cohen's lung cancer mortality in counties

vs

> > their average home radon levels, explains why in Iowa (highest radon, !%

> > outlier), cases of lung cancer have higher home radon  than controls (at

> > >0.4 piCi/l), while on the other, left, side of the U, less than USA av

of

> > c 1.3,  the lung cancer mortality is higher in counties with less radon.

> >

> > Are biologic defenses stimulated best by a medium dose rate, as well as

a

> > medium total dose (from 1.0 to 4.0 pCi/l) ? See Pollycove's

presntations.

> >

> > Howard Long



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

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/