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

Fw: A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology Epidemic



A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology Epedemic



Howard,

    I suppose that is why the practice of medicine is considered to be an

art as well as a science. Unlike radiation safety, medicine allows for the

exercise of judgment. I can envision the ultimate socialized medicine

situation where standard therapies were prescribed by advisory committees,

and administered under the control of government agencies. Eventually

physicians would become unnecessary. People could simply enter their

symptoms and vital measurements into a suitably programmed computer, which

would then dispense the officially prescribed medication from an automated

pharmacy.

 We would have a brave new world of medicine.

    Unfortunately, some might think---  "Maybe thats not such a bad idea".

Ugh!

Jerry









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

From: Howard Long

To: jjcohen ; john cameron

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:50 PM

Subject: Re: A different viewpoint on the Epidemiology Epidemic





Dose 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/



************************************************************************

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/