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

["yuan-chi luan" <nbcsoc@hotmail.com>]

Dear Jim, Jerry, John, Howard, reuven and all RSH friends:



Thanks to all of you are interested in the Co-60 contamination incident in Taiwan, and considering  it might be a good  basis to have a new system for radiation protection, which would encourage the public to always welcome of radiation, and the doctors to use the radiation for immune of cancers and hereditary diseases.



John raised the question of the relationship between doses and  effcts as we indicated in our paper it was not so important. If the ICRP is right, the collective dose of the residents 4000 Sv-persons would induce 100 excess cancers (based on the ICRP 2005 new recommendation and modified by DDREF factor 2) The collective dose we estimated might be not accurate, but the estimation by the four groups of  health physicists and their resuts published  in the HPJ (two taiwan groups, CJ Tung et all, FY Hsh et all,  and two US groups, J. Cardarell et al, M. Kathryn et al ) yet still not definite data of doses  obtained, and the  important point was they did not mention any thing about cancer deaths increased, though actually their spontaneous cancer deaths greatly reduced. So thqt we said the doses are not so important. Yet the highest chronic radiation dose receied by residents in 21 years is still the real reason for reduction or immunie of their cancers.



It was highly unilkely that we had wrong data of cancer mortality, which was eaxctly recorded year by year in Taiwan and in Taiwpei City. We might be mistake in the cancer deaths of the irradiated residents. We believed our statistic based on the reports of the annul conference, the human nature of residents themslf, if there are cancer incidences or deaths, the residents will  step out and exclaim, and all the media will never miss such newsworth topics, and if they will sue government for compensation, they  have high possiblity to  win.   



As we redeem this is the most important case that could show the real health effects of radiation which help people never fear of radiation from the nuclear industries, and help the doctors to consider the chronic radiation might be a method for immune of cancers and even hereditary diseases, I have recommended the Sevetary General of UN, the president of USA, the chairmaan of USCEAR instructing of the related scientists or organizations to reexamine or study this  radiological contaminated incident in Taiwan. And the US HPS also ever recommended all the important organizations as IAEA and DOE  to do the same thing. 



I am still having the dream that the fact of chronic radiation is always beneficial to huamnity will be recognized people and use the benefits.  I try my best to attend all the international conference to  introducing of my assertion, though I am to old to do such thing, and many scientists and communities seem disliki my assertuib. Next week, myself and some of  colleagues decide to attend the Recemt Tremds in Radiation Biology in India, but we are suddently  discouraged not to do that. I am sad that I had to imform our india friends that I have to refuse their cordial and hospitaity invitation to their conference.



Any friends if you  believe the incident in Taiwan is an important case that would benefit people, please do something!



Best regards



YC.  Luan



Senior Scientist of the NuSTA and Consultant of the NBC Society      

------------------------------------------------------ original message-----------------------------------------------------





>From: "Jerry Cuttler"

>Reply-To: "Jerry Cuttler" >To: "John Jacobus" , "howard long" , "Reuven" , , , "RAD-SCI-L" >Subject: Re: Using linear or hormetic model? Re: Comments, article on Taiwan cobalt-60 exposures >Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:55:47 -0500 > >There is data and it was analyzed (a bit crudely), as explained in the article, to estimate "the collective dose" using the ICRP linear methodology. The linear model predicts bionegative responses -- "excess" cancer deaths and "excess" congenital malformations -- as shown in Table 3, but the data indicates the opposite -- fewer cancer deaths and fewer congenital malformations than expected, even for unirradiated people. A more accurate estimate of the collective dose would provide more accurate predictions of "excess" deaths and "excess" malformations, but the data indicates a bipositive response. > >So the authors have, appropriately, proposed the hormetic model shown in Figure 2, which predicts biopositive responses for chronic dose rates above the ambient background dose rate. They have also urged that a scientific review be carried by other independent organizations to examine the population data in detail. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Jacobus > To: Jerry Cuttler ; howard long ; Reuven ; ROBBARISH@aol.com ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu ; RAD-SCI-L > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:36 PM > Subject: Re: Using linear or hormetic model? Re: Comments, article on Taiwan cobalt-60 exposures > > > 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 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 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 > >