[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology Epidemic
As you say, the problem is that the ionizing radiation
will need to be adjusted for each individual to ensure
sensitive populations, like those who are
photosensitive and suseptible to skin cancer, do not
receive an overdose. Determining the beneficial
limits for each person would sound like a daunting
task. You sound like you would be willing to take on
that task for your patients. What test would you use?
How many groups do you think there are in the
population? What if you missed a group and suddenly
had an increase in cancers?
It would more purdent to ensure the risks are low for
all populations. It you give you physicians more time
to cure the real diseases.
--- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology
> EpedemicDose of medicine/radiation adjusts for
> individual variation better with private patient
> choice than government dictate.
>
> We physicians daily individualize for
> photosensitivity from tetracyline, Scotch skin,
> etc., while encouraging sunshine for osteoporosis
> (vit D) and skin circulation (which might also
> benefit from ionizing radiation).
>
> Standard Care (LNT) dictates often deprive
> socialized medicine (Medicare) subjects of great
> good, or require risky treatment.
>
> Deregulate for safer care, since regulators dicate
> what is best for them (simplicity), while physicians
> or physicists hired by individuals, individualize.
>
> Howard Long
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jjcohen
> To: john cameron
> Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: A different viewpoint on the
> Epidemiology Epidemic
>
>
> John,
> 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!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
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/