[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/