[ RadSafe ] Radiation deficiency remediation - nuclear power promotion

[howard long]

John,
Attached is one page of irrefutable data. "Observed" is a hard fact. Tables trump graphs, which are interpolated from tables. I do not locate the 1977 paper you refer to. If you think it has data which can reverse that enclosed - or the conclusion that it is statistically likely that 1- 9 rad DECREASED breast cancer (likely increased in higher doses) - please reply and attach that page.
 
Howard Long 


John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:

Actually, I had. But you refused to understand the
arguement.

1. The Land and McGregor paper of 1977 shows that
there were more cancers than expected based on
epidemiological studies. There is no LNT involved. 
Read the paper. The expected was based on breast
cancer rates in the Miyagi and Okayama prefectures. 
The table on page 802 clear shows a greater than
expected occurrance of breast cancers.

2. The Land and McGregor paper of 1979 is a DIFFERENT
paper. In this paper they are proposing a fitted
functon to correlate the breast cancers to the
estimated dose. Table 2 which you cite does show a
linear fitting of the data. If you look at the
diagram in Text-Figure 1, you will see the plot of the
linear and linear-exponential curves plotted with the
observed cancers. 

MY POINT IS THE THE 1977 PAPER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT
OBSERVED CANCERS EXCEEDED EXPECTED AT 0-9 RADS. NO
EXTRAPOLATION OR LNT. YET, YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THAT
DATA. INSTEAD YOU SAID THEY MADE IT UP.

READ THE PAPERS!!!

--- howard long wrote:
> John, you have never responded to the original Land-
> McGregor data that there was LESS breast cancer with
> 1-9 rad than with less radiation. Their avoidance of
> that fact later to selectively comment on the higher
> dose effect, is unfortunately typical of persons
> with preconceived ideas like LNT, that also
> influence their livelihood.
> 
> The discussions on Rad-Sci indicate the unpopularity
> of your LNT viewpoint with those who research most
> critically..
> 
> Howard
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> That is very bold and libelous statement. Do you
> have
> any proof of their scientific misconduct? Is this
> the
> typical answer that proponent of hormesis give when
> presented with evidence they don't like? Attack the
> authors of a peer reviewed article? Your cannot
> change published data. It is for all the world to
> see. 
> 
> Maybe you are right. We do not have very much in
> common. You will say and do whatever it takes to win
> your arguement. You have lost all credibility with
> me. I doubt if you care.
> 
> --- howard long wrote:
> 
> > Land-Mcgregor later sanitize their paper to hide
> the
> > inescapable fact that there was LESS breast cancer
> > at 1-9rad than expected from controlling as they
> did
> > to find the MORE breast cancer at high doses. 
> > 
> > Howard Long
> > 
> > John Jacobus wrote:
> > Why is what I propose not fair? Basically, you
> want
> > a
> > one sided discussion of the issues based those who
> > have a political agenda. Maybe if you took the
> time
> > and effort in seeing both sides of the issues,
> would
> > understand why professional epidemiologist and
> > radiation sciencists have challenged the claims of
> > hormesis based on the studies cited.
> > 
> > However, I expected as much. When I asked you to
> > comment on the Land and McGregor paper, you
> refused,
> > or rather avoided responding. What are you afraid
> > of?
> > Independent thought? It is certainly cheaper and
> > takes less time for others form your opinions.
> > 
> > --- howard long wrote:
> > 
> > > No, John, not fair. Your NCRP 136 has chapter titles
> > > for info in presentations I have already heard  and
> > > seen from Luckey, Pollycove, Muckerheide, Cameron
> > > and many others over 12 years. So I see no purpose
> > > to spending either the $50 or hours of study 
> > > 
> > > Officialdom hides beneficial effect 1, by one-tailed tests ( NSWS), 

2, losing it in crowded data at the end of a spectrum (Canadian fluoroscopy -
> > > breast-cancer), 

 3, publicizing only effects at the high dose level (breast cancer -bomb study), etc.
> > > Those distortions do not need to be researched again  by me. 
> > > 
> > > Fear-mongering ( countered by showing benefit rather than fictitious cancer risk at < 10 rem), slows the building of the one hundred new  nuclear power plants we need in the USA.


> > > We also need the preventive medicine of more short wave length sunshine, ionizing radiation..
> > > 
> > > Howard Long