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

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

Public health DEMANDS benefit (hormesis) be balanced against harm!



Dirty bomb cleanup that removed more than about 10 rad max exposure would

HARM all except those profiting from the unnecessary cleanup.



 Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Spring 2004 9:1,6-11 documents

1.5 congenital malformations/1000 <19 yoa (vs 23 expected) and 3.5 cancers

/100,000 person-years (vs 116 expected) for "radiation doses that averaged

0.4 Sv [40 c Sv, 40 rad] - a "collective dose" of 4,000 person-Sv".

Also available at www.oism and www.aapsonline.org



Do you still say, John, that, " -hormesis is not relevant to public health

policies"?

(below)



Howard Long MD MPH



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

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

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

<crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>; <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;

<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Cc: <rad-sci-1@wpi.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:52 AM

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

risk





> Leave if you wish.  However, there are many who say

> that the issue of hormesis is not relevant to public

> health policies.  And that is the central arguement to

> position.

>

> 1.  Stat Med. 1989 Feb;8(2):173-87.

> "Issues in analysing the effects of occupational

> exposure to low levels of radiation." Gilbert ES.

>

> 2.  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2002 Jun;35(3):414-28.

>

> "Hormesis and high-risk groups."

> Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA.

>

> 3.  Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:63-7.  Hormesis:

> implications for public policy regarding toxicants.

> Lave LB.

>

>

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

> > Hormesis IS Established!

> >

> > John, I will not leave as last word your clearly

> > erroneous (and seriously

> > damaging) statement that, "doses at rates less than

> > 100 mSv cannot be shown

> > to have

> >  either a beneficial or detrimental effect.".!   NOT

> >  SO! See references

> > below.

> > 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>

> > Cc: <rad-sci-1@wpi.edu>

> > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:34 PM

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

> > OR LOWERS lung cancer  risk

> > > I appreciate the information on PSA and its

> > relation

> > > to prostate cancer.

> > >

> > > While effects can be shown for isolated cases of

> > low dose radiation expose, hormesis will always be a

> > > marginal subject. As I have stated many times,

> > doses at rates less than 100 mSv cannot be shown to have

> > > either a beneficial or detrimental effect.

> > >

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

> > > > John and other hormesis marginalizers,

> > > >

> > > > 1. Metastases or regrowth may be indicated by

> > PSA up after prostate

> > removal

> > > > or ablation.

> > > > 2. Radiation oncologists and all other

> > physicians

> > > > are greatly inhibited by  lawsuits for any

> > non-standard treatment.

> > > > 3.Sensitzing with LDR (10-75 rad) before

> > radiotherapy of c100rad 3x/week

> > for

> > > > 6-8 weeks, has shown much better response of

> > cancers

> > > > (see references on Muckerheide's list below).

> > > >

> > > > 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/