[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology Epidemic



A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology EpedemicJohn,  

    As a long time follower and believer in  Paracelsus' teachings, I certainly concur with your views as well as those of Brignell in "The Epidemiologists" (as reviewed by Rob Lyons). As I see it, the problem is far more complicated than simply determining whether a given exposure to a physical, chemical, or biological agent is either harmful or beneficial. There is no law that states that the response of all cellular, tissue, and organ systems to any given stimulus must be similar in nature. It is therefore entirely possible, if not likely, that for any given exposure, multiple responses of differing natures could occur simultaneously.Some of these responses might be harmful in nature while others beneficial, Sorting out such phenomena to determine  "net" effects over a range of exposure levels and individual differences in response would simply be too complicated for most advisory groups (e.g. ICRP) or regulatory agencies (NRC, EPA). We are therefore stuck with simplistic

 guidance ,such as LNT, that makes no sense, but it is easy to deal with. While I agree that there is likely an "optimum" exposure level for radiation and other hazardous agents, I doubt that this level would be identical for all individuals. Perhaps the beginning of wisdom would be to  recognize the complex nature of the problem and attempt to avoid facile solutions. For purposes of "controlling" or regulating exposures I think we first need to define what an exposure limit is supposed to achieve. For example, if we were to have the perfect exposure limit to radiation of anything else, how could we recognize this to be the case? In the current regulatory climate, I doubt that such questions will  be resolved or even addressed within the foreseeable future.

Jerry

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

  From: john cameron 

  To: jjcohen 

  Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 5:21 PM

  Subject: A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology Epidemic





  Jerry, thank you for posting the article by Rob Lyons:  An Epidemiology Epidemic

  You asked: Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?? 

          Yes, I want to suggest that we take a broader view of health effects of all chemical and physical agents.  Epidemiology is the study of harmful effects (epidemics) We should be putting our effort into determining the optimum intake of various chemical and physical agents, especially low dose rate radiation. In the last century great progress was made in regard to determining the optimum daily dose of many poisonous elements and vitamins. There are about 15 essential trace elements all of which are poisons. Drug companies have determined reasonably well the optimum dose of many medications which are also poisonous. I agree with Parcelsus that the poison is in the dose. He could have extended the idea to state that the benefit is in the dose rate.

          Several large studies of radiation workers showed significant health benefits, especially in longevity, it is inappropriate to refer to these as "epidemiological studies". There was nothing even vaguely related to an epidemic.

          The early British radiologists (1897-1920) had 75% more cancer deaths than their non-radiologist medical colleagues.  However, they lived as long as their medical colleagues thanks to a 14% lower (p<0.05) non-cancer death rate.  British radiologists who joined a radiological society between 1955-1979 had 29% lower cancer death rate (NS) and a non-cancer death rate 36% lower (p<0.001) than their medical colleagues.  (What is the opposite of an epidemic?) 

          A similar health improvement was observed in  the U.S. nuclear shipyard worker study.  (See the unpublished review article: Sponsler  R. and Cameron   J.R.  NUCLEAR SHIPYARD WORKER STUDY (1980-1988): A LARGE COHORT EXPOSED TO LOW DOSE-RATE GAMMA RADIATION. http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~jrc/art_nsws1.htm)  The most dramatic health benefit to the 28,000 nuclear shipyard workers with the highest cumulative doses  was a 31% lower (p<10^-16) non-cancer death rate than the 32,500 age- and job-matched shipyard workers who received no occupational dose. Their death rate from all causes was 24% lower than the controls with a similar p-value.

          It seems to me that instead of using the rules of epidemiology we need to use the rules used to determine if a trace element is essential. 

          It is time we spend more money and effort finding the optimum dose rate for ionizing radiation.  The idea that ionizing radiation is a serious health hazard is not based on facts but on propaganda. It is time to correct a serious miscarriage of scientific logic.

  Best wishes,

  John Cameron

  PS This message is not being sent to the radsafe list server as my temporary outgoing e-mail address is not approved. In six weeks I will be using my acceptable e-mail address "jrcamero@wisc.edu".  If you feel it is of interest to some of the members of the list, please submit it for me. Thanks, John 













-- 



  John R. Cameron (jrcamero@wisc.edu)

  E2571 Porter Rd.  PO Box 405, Lone Rock,WI 53556 Phone: (608) 583-2160 (until 10/20/04)

  2678 SW 14th Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608 Phone: (352) 371-9865 (after 10/20/04)



  Visit  the Virtual Radiation Museum  (VRM), the first "Wing" in the SCIENCE MUSEUM  at "http://www.sciencemuseum.us".  My web page is  http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~jrc/