[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology Epidemic
I think you addressed the problem very eloquently.
Biology is not like physics, so the results are never
that clear cut. However, regulations have to be.
--jcohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
> 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/
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"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!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
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/