Re: Using linear or hormetic model? Re: Comments, article on Taiwancobalt-60 exposures

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

You are missing the point.  You need to analyze the

data first and then propose a model.  If the data fits

a hormetic model, then that would be appropriate. 

However, Figure 2 does not reflect the data since it

is unclear what if the relationship between dose and

effect for the data presented. 



How can you say the dose values are not important?



--- Jerry Cuttler <jerrycuttler@rogers.com> wrote:



> "where is the correlation between those who

> developed cancers and the doses recieved?  That is

> what was done with the

> Japanses atomic bomb survivors." 

> 

> It seems some people are trying to fit a linear

> model as was done in the LSS.  If we open our minds

> to the possibility that a hormetic model (see Figure

> 2 in the article) is applicable, then accurate

> values of the doses received are not important.  

> 

> 

>   ----- Original Message ----- 

>   From: John Jacobus 

>   To: Jerry Cuttler ; howard long ; Reuven ;

> ROBBARISH@aol.com ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu ;

> rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU 

>   Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:56 AM

>   Subject: Re: Comments, article on Taiwan cobalt-60

> exposures

> 

> 

>   The issues are not with the data but with the

>   conclusion and claim that low doses or radiation

> (at

>   what levels?) prevented a number of cancers an

>   congenital defects.  For one thing, where is the

>   correlation between those who developed cancers

> and

>   the doses recieved?  That is what was done with

> the

>   Japanses atomic bomb survivors. 

>  

> http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/radefx/late/cancrisk.htm

> 

>   The letter from Dr. Richard Wakefield raises

> questions

>   that need to be answered.

> 

>   --- Jerry Cuttler <jerrycuttler@rogers.com> wrote:

> 

>   > In my read of the

>   > http://aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/chen.pdf 

>   > article, I don't see extraordinary claims.  It

>   > presents the official information available,

>   > explains the analysis performed and points out

>   > limitations of the study.  It urges a scientific

>   > review be carried out by other independent

>   > organizations, and that data not available to

> the

>   > authors be provided so "a fully qualified

>   > epidemiologically valid analysis can be made."

>   > 

>   > There was correspondence on the matter raised

> below.

>   >  It's available at:

>   > http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/correspondence.pdf

>  

>   >   ----- Original Message ----- 

>   >   From: howard long 

>   >   To: John Jacobus ; Reuven ; ROBBARISH@aol.com

> ;

>   > radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu ; rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU 

>   >   Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:29 PM

>   >   Subject: Re: "proof" of In-flight radiation

>   > benefit : like hypertension treatment?

> 





=====

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

"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/