[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation benefit : like hypertension treatment?
As Jim pointed out, this study does not prove the
claims made as many questions, e.g., age distribution,
has not been studies. As a physician, you should know
that cancers are rare in young populaitons. How does
cancer and age distribution compare with the doses
levels? How do these ratios compare to the cancers in
a cohort, unexposed population?
Correlation does not mean that is a casual
relationship.
Use of radiation to arrest gangrene does not enter
into this discussion.
--- howard long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> John,
> The data from Taiwan, a natural experiment, has been
> carefully studied. I hope that Luan will comment on
> your not finding the few cancers and deformities
> related to dosage in his article.
>
> Mine would be that you impose a "Catch 22". There
> were so few cancers and deformities (where many
> would be expected in a similar population c 10,000
> over 9-20 years)!
> Your small numbers problem does not exist when a
> medicine always cures!
>
> If only radiation were as effective in curing
> gangrene as Jerry Cuttler finds and in preventing
> cancer as Taiwan data suggests! Physicians will be
> gratefull for a fraction of that!
>
> Howard Long
>
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 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 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
> >
> > 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 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
>
=== 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!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.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/