[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation benefit : like hypertension treatment?
I do not understand what you are talking about. Could
you clarify what you mean or have someone else do it
for you.
Did you see my post of studies of frequent air
travelers?
--- howard long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part."
Thomas Jefferson
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
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/