Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancerrisk

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

John wrote: "Animal studies are useful, but may not reflect the actual

effects on humans."



The next question would be: "How much difference in the response to a simple

physical agent do you expect there to be between animal and human cells ?"



I can see animals and humans responding differently to a virus, for example,

because that virus has evolved specifically for one species. However, for

simple physical stimuli like heat, light, pressure or radiation, why would

we expect much of a difference? If I drop a hot soldering iron on my skin,

it probably has a very similar effect on me as it would have on naked mouse.

I think the physical mechanisms of cells are pretty standard among mammals.

We have a long time of common evolution.



Kai



----- Original Message ----- 

From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>; <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;

<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:31 AM

Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancer

risk





> Howard,

> Animal studies are useful, but may not reflect the

> actual effects on humans.  As a physician, I assume

> you understand the issues with animal vs. human

> studies. As for the epidemiological, most conclude

> that there is no adverse effect to the radiation

> received.  It is only those who have a political

> agenda that draw conclusions that the study authors do

> not find.

>

> By the way, would you prescribe a CT scan to one of

> your patients just so they get a dose of radiation?

> Would you precribe one for yourself?

>

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

> > Wrong, John,

> > At 100 mSv (approx10 Rad) effects have been shown in

> > numerous animal and

> > epidemiologic studies (below). If you insist on $800

> > M studies to prove

> > efficacy, like FDA requires, you support the Empire

> > while depriving the

> > citizens.

> >

> > Howard Long

> >

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

> > From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>

> > To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>;

> > <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;

> > <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:59 PM

> > Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises

> > OR LOWERS lung cancer

> > risk

> >

> >

> > > Considering the levels of uncertainty of the

> > > statistical risk, I doubt that it cannot be proven

> > > that 1 rad will INCREASE or DECREASE the risk.  At

> > > levels below 100 mSv no demonstrated effects,

> > positive

> > > or negative, have been seen.

> > >

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

> > > > One rad acute (av CT dose) would more likely

> > LOWER

> > > > risks of cancers,

> > > > according to numerous references at

> > > > jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu or

> > > > muckerheide@comcast.net .

> > > > Howard Long

> > > >

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

> > > > From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

> > > > To: <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;

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

> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:03 AM

> > > > Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening

> > raises

> > > > lung cancer risk

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Of course, does frequent CT scanning also

> > increase

> > > > the

> > > > > risk of other cancers, such as stomach, liver,

> > > > > thyroid, etc.?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > --- TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The real question is not does CT screening

> > raise

> > > > or

> > > > > > lower the risk of lung

> > > > > > cancer but does it identify lung cancer at

> > an

> > > > early

> > > > > > enough stage to be

> > > > > > cured.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thomas A. Conley, RRPT, CHP

> > > > > > Section Chief, Radiation and Asbestos

> > Control

> > > > > > Kansas Department of Health and Environment

> > > > > > Phone: (785) 296-1565

> > > > > > email: tconley@kdhe.state.ks.us

> > > >

>

>

> =====

> +++++++++++++++++++

> "To be persuasive, we must be believable,

> To be believable, we must be credible,

> To be credible, we must be truthful."

> Edward R. Murrow

>

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> Do you Yahoo!?

> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

>



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

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/