Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation benefit : like hypertension treatment?

[howard long <hflong@pacbell.net>]

Dear John,

So, "All of this is speculation."?!

 

If $800,000,000 per "proven" use of efficacy of every medicine as required by FDA is useless "speculation", 

then FDA is useless, and we ought to disband it.  Not a bad idea.

Your job, too?

 

Howard Long



John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

All of this is speculation, which is what you claim is

the problem with the LNT. Unless you have studies to

support you claims of benefits to those who fly, you

should clear say that the benefits are unproven.



By the way, have you checked to see if there have been

any studies that show an adverse effect?



--- howard long wrote:



> Dear John,

> Assuming exposure to extra c 0.5 rad/year gamma

> radiation of air crews,

> believing benefit to NSWorkers from similar amount 

> and to Taiwan apt dwellers of ten (10) times that

> yearly dosage,

> I believe it more adequately "proven" that in-flight

> radiation benefits 

> flight crews, than that anti-hypertensive medicines

> benefit some patients 

> because others have benefited. Indirect evidence

> from experience 

> with others having similar "treatment" is usually

> accepted.

> 

> I know of no study (nor could I design one with

> adequate numbers)

> for benefit/harm to pregnant women from radiation

> in flying.

> 

> I have several pilot as patients, and they are

> exeptionally healthy.

> Where is the data for retired flight crew cancer

> prevalence vs expected? 

> Would this be like asbestos exposure remuneration

> for people without disease,

> claiming the FEAR of future trouble is grounds for

> compensation?

> 

> Let's stop the fear - mongering with LNT!

> 

> Howsrd Long

> 

> John Jacobus wrote:

> Do you have any proof that people who fly have

> benefited from the radiation exposure? Have you any

> epidemiological studies to back up your claims?

> 

> 

> --- howard long wrote:

> 

> > I apologize to Dr. Barish for suggesting he had

> > represented a flight crew union. 

> > I did not have first hand information about that.

> > 

> > However, the spin from the editor who refused

> > rebuttle of Dr Barrish's LNT assumptions,

> > gave bogus fear to the flying public, including my

> > patients. 

> > 

> > I hope Dr. Barish will update his article, as he

> > seems inclined to do (below). Those medical peer

> > reviewers deceived by LNT dictates need to be

> > brought up to date by such hormesis for reducing

> > fetal deformities. Fetal deformities were Observed

> > 3, vs Expected 23, in Taiwan apartments dosing

> > 10,000 people for 9-20 years with 0.4 Sv, 

> > (=40 cSv, cGray, rem or rad from Co 60). See

> > JAmPhysSurg 9/1 pp 6-10, also peer reviewed.

> > 

> > Flyers BENEFIT from radiation.

> > 

> > Howard Long

> > 

> > 

> > ROBBARISH@AOL.COM wrote:

> > 

> > Dear List members:

> > 

> > I'm not used to having the legitimacy of my

> academic

> > publications questioned, particularly when they

> are

> > indexed on Entrez PubMed and are readily available

> > for public scrutiny.

> > 

> > Since there was a question about whether JABFP is

> a

> > peer-reviewed publication, I submit the following

> > description from the web site of the ABFP. Pay

> > particular attention to the last sentence of the

> > description:

> > 

> > About The Journal of the American Board of Family

> > Practice 

> > 

> > The primary purpose of the JABFP is to publish

> > original papers pertaining to clinical

> > investigations and case reports and review

> articles

> > pertinent to the specialty of Family Practice. The

> > articles published are intended to provide new and

> > valuable information or reference by the entire

> > medical community. It is also intended to serve as

> > an important forum for the specialty of Family

> > Practice and as a medium for timely information

> > concerning the activities of the American Board of

> > Family Practice. 

> > 

> > The Journal of the American Board of Family

> Practice

> > welcomes for editorial review manuscripts that

> > contribute to family practice as a clinical

> > scientific discipline. High priority is given to

> > reports of clinically relevant studies that have

> > practical implications for improved patient care.

> > Manuscripts are considered in relation to the

> extent

> > to which they represent original work, their

> > significance to the advancement of family

> medicine,

> > and their interest to the practicing family

> > physician. Manuscripts are submitted to an

> > anonymous, confidential peer-review process, which

> > is usually completed within about 6 weeks.

> > 

> > In-flight radiation: counseling patients about

> risk 

> > J Am Board Fam Pract 1999 12: 195-199.

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > Another paper of mine appeared recently in the

> > journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. I submit that

> > description as well:

> > 

> > About Obstetrics & Gynecology

> > 

> > Obstetrics & Gynecology is the Official

> Publication

> > of the American College of Obstetricians and

> > Gynecologists (ACOG). 

> > 

> > Popularly known as "The Green Journal," Obstetrics

> &

> > Gynecology publishes original articles and

> research

> > studies on: scientific advances, new medical and

> > surgical techniques, obstetric management, and

> > clinical evaluation of drugs and instruments. 

> > 

> > In addition to its authoritative articles and

> > studies, Obstetrics & Gynecology continues to

> > feature the sections that obstetricians and

> > gynecologists around the world have come to depend

> > upon: Case Reports, Current Commentaries, Expert

> > Clinical Series, Personal Perspectives,

> Editorials,

> > and Letters. Obstetrics & Gynecology's rigorous

> > editorial policies ensure that all articles are of

> > the highest quality and that they are published

> > while current. These policies have made The Green

> > Journal one of the most respected and most

> consulted

> > journals in the world. 

> > 

> > Obstetrics & Gynecology is the most complete and

> > reliable source of information on current

> > developments in women's health care. Audience:

> > Obstetricians, Gynecologists, General

> Practitioners,

> > Family Practitioners, Endocrinologists,

> Oncologists.

> > 

> > 

> > In-Flight Radiation Exposure During Pregnancy

> > Obstet. Gynecol., Jun 2004; 103: 1326 - 1330.

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > For the benefit of those who don't want to

> research

> > these articles in their entirety, I concluded that

> > the risks of in-flight radiation are trivial

> during

> > pregnancy, with the exception of the first day of

> > pregnancy when even a small dose of radiation

> might

> > cause spontaneous miscarriage. In the JABFP

> article

> > I also conclude that the risks to passengers

> during

> > casual travel are trivial but may not be

> completely

> > negligible for crewmembers and other very-frequent

> > flyers if LNT is valid. I didn't say that it is

> > valid, I only explained how that theory worked.

> > There is nothing sensational about either of these

> > papers or, indeed, about any other of my comments

> on

> > this subject that can be found in the RADSAFE

> > archives and in the Ask the Expert section of the

> > Health Physics Society website. 

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > Regarding the statement by Dr. Long that I was

> > somehow employed by a union, I categorically deny

> > that unsupported allegation. My affiliation as

> Chief

> > Physicist of the Cancer Institute of St. Vincent's

> 

=== message truncated ===