[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation benefit : like hypertension treatment?
Extraordianry claims require extraordinary proof. If
you read the article,
http://aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/chen.pdf there is
no correlation with the exposures with the diagnosed
conditions. Maybe all of the cancer deaths and
congenital defects occurred in those with high
exposures. Better yet, the is NO correlation between
exposure values and effects. All of the data was
lumped together.
Maybe that is why the title ends in a question mark.
You really need to read more carefully.
--- howard long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Also elementary, it would be even more convincing if
> there were ZERO cases of deformity (instead of just
> 3) among radiation exposed, pregnant women, where 23
> were expected from comparable population.
>
> Howard Long
>
> Reuven <reuven99@newsguy.com> wrote:
> ANY INFERENCE / CONCLUSION / ETC. based on an
> observation of 3 (!) children MUST be suspected and
> deemed SCIENTIFICALLY insufficient!!!
>
> This is elementary, Dr. Watson.
>
>
>
==================================================================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: howard long
> To: Reuven ; John Jacobus ; ROBBARISH@AOL.COM ;
> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu ; rad-sci-1@wpi.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation benefit
> : like hypertension treatment?
>
>
> You may be right, Reuven. Instead of sarcasm, why
> don't you read on line,
> "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis
> Against Cancer?" by Chen, Luan et al at
> AAPSonline.org ,scrolling down to Journal of
> American Physicians and Surgeons, then to V9 N1
> Spring 2004. I quote from the abstract about this
> natural experiment:
>
> "Three children were born with congenital heart
> formations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5
> cases per 1,000 children under age 19.- Based upon
> partial official statistics and hospital experience,
> the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23
> cases per 1,000 children. - significant beneficial
> health effects may be associated with this chronic
> radiation exposure. " [av 0.4Sv over 9-20 years, c 4
> cSv or 4 rad/year]
>
> This article is very scientifically based and
> reviewed, as you can see for yourself.
> Howard Long
>
> <reuven99@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Hi Howard:
>
> As a physician, you may want to advice your pregnant
> women to keep passing through those 'screening'
> devices back and forth for extra health.
>
> I'm sure they, and their progeny will forever be
> indebted to you, who so religiously follow the
> Hippocratic oath.
>
> ps - Are you really unable to design a 'test' or
> even a 'Gedanken test' to prove your conviction?
>
> Reuven
>
>
====================================================================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: howard long
> To: John Jacobus ; ROBBARISH@AOL.COM ;
> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu ; rad-sci-1@wpi.edu
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 12:19 PM
> Subject: Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation benefit
> : like hypertension treatment?
>
>
> 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 <crispy_bird@yahoo.com> 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
> > signifi! cance 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
>
=== 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/