Re: A good Hormetic Effect of Background Radiation is shown in a1973 AEC report.

[Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca>]

Bernard Cohen wrote:



> Cancer rates vary from 17%

> in Rocky Mountain states to 23% in New England, whereas LNT predicts

> that only about 1-2% of all cancers are caused by background radiation,

> so everyone must agree that these other factors must be more important

> than radiation.



Just because LNT limits the detrimental effects of radiation to 1-2% of all

cases does not mean any beneficial effect is limited to the same value. I am

not aware of any study that can be used to put an upper limit to the

beneficial effect of radiation (if there is one) in the dose range that is

relevant here (an extra ~2 mSv/y maybe?). Do you know of any?



BTW, I agree that the study has severe limitations and one should not jump

to conclusions. But, I would rather see the limitations addressed than the

study dismissed because there are some limitations. It is still very

interesting data.



Kai



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

From: "Bernard Cohen" <blc+@PITT.EDU>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:28 AM

Subject: Re: A good Hormetic Effect of Background Radiation is shown in a

1973 AEC report.





>

>  It is unfortunate that for some unforeseen reason the authors of the

> following report did not publish the results in a scientific journal:

>

> > Frigerio, N.A., Eckerman, K.F. and Stowe, R.S. (1973) Carcinogenic

> > Hazard from Low-Level, Low-Rate Radiation, Part I, Rep. ANL/ES-26.

> > Argonne Nat. Lab

> >     It shows that the six states with the highest background have a

> > cancer death rate 15% lower than the average for all the states. The

> > statistical certainty appears to be better than about 5 std dev. The

> > authors obviously planned to publish their results as reference #24 in

> > their report is to themselves as "to be published".

>

>     ----We should recognize the severe limitations of this work. It

> says, essentially, that the Rocky Mountain states which have high

> background radiation have low cancer rates, and the Gulf Plain states

> which have low background radiation have high cancer rates. But cancer

> rates can be impacted by many factors other than radiation -- these

> would be called confounding factors. Some examples would be age of

> population, pollution levels, socioeconomic factors (poor people have

> higher cancer rates than the well-to-do), ethnicity of population,

> smoking habits, diet, weather, climate, etc. Cancer rates vary from 17%

> in Rocky Mountain states to 23% in New England, whereas LNT predicts

> that only about 1-2% of all cancers are caused by background radiation,

> so everyone must agree that these other factors must be more important

> than radiation.

>     Recognizing these problems played a big role in the design of my

> studies of radon vs lung cancer in U.S. counties. I gave very extesive

> treatment to all of the above potential confounding factors and numerous

> others. I also had the starting advantage that LNT predicts that 10% of

> all lung cancers are due to radon..

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

>



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

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/