Re: Hormetic Effects of Radiation should not be limited to cancer.

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Dr. Cameron,

I would be remiss if I did not point out the your

assertion, like many studies of low dose and low-dose

rate irradiation, are not that clear cut.  See 



"Does low dose internal radiation increase lifespan?" 

Lloyd RD, Taylor GN, Miller SCHealth Phys. 2004

Jun;86(6):629-32.



And 



"Mortality patterns in British and US radiologists:

what can we really conclude?" Brenner DJ, Hall EJ.

Br J Radiol. 2003 Jan;76(901):1-2.  



I certainly do applaud your efforts to study this

issue and publish.  Your works are always of interest.



--- john cameron <jrcamero@wiscmail.wisc.edu> wrote:



> Dear Otto,

> 	 Perhaps you have noticed that beneficial effects

> seems to be 

> narrowly interpreted to reduction of cancer which is

> hard to prove 

> because of the complexity of cancer and the many

> causes of cancer, 

> such as obesity.

> 	The strongest evidence of health benefits of

> radiation is the 

> greatly reduced deaths from non-cancer as shown in

> the nuclear 

> shipyard worker and the 100 -year study of British

> radiologists. Even 

> the earliest UK radiologists (1897-1920) with a 75%

> increase in 

> cancer had a significant decrease of deaths from

> non-cancer. Their 

> longevity was slightly longer (NS) than their

> medical colleagues.

> 	 The decrease in non-cancer is easiest to

> understand by the 

> public in terms of increased longevity. See my

> article:  Cameron, 

> J.R. Longevity is the most appropriate measure of

> health effects of 

> radiation,  Radiology 229, 14-16 (2003). 

>

http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~jrc/art_longevity.htm

> 	The death rate from non-cancer for 28,000 nuclear

> shipyard 

> workers with the greatest cumulative doses was 31%

> lower than that of 

> the 32,500 unexposed controls. (16 std dev or

> p<10^-16) This results 

> in  an increase of longevity of about three years.

> 	The non-cancer death rate of the UK radiologists

> who joined a 

> radiological society between 1955-1979 is 36% lower 

> (p<0.001) than 

> that of other UK MDs.

> 	It seems to me that radiation health scientists

> should look 

> at the real bottom line! I welcome your comments.

> Best wishes,

> John Cameron

> 

> >You wrote: (1) The State with the lowest cancer

> rate has most of its 

> >population living very close to sea level: HAWAII

> >

> >(2) Age distribution is not a factor in published

> cancer rates since 

> >they have been corrected for age distribution.

> 

> -- 

> John R. Cameron (jrcamero@wisc.edu)

> 3100 Lake Mendota Dr. #502, Madison, WI 53705  (608)

> 238-9694 until 10/20

> 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/

> 





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects."

Will Rogers



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com





		

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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/