[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/