[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation - nuclear power promotion

[John Jacobus]

I have sent the following message.  However, the
attachment was too large for the RADSAFE list server. 
If anyone would like a copy of the McGregor and Land
1977 paper, please contact me directly.  Again, I
would like to have some impartial people review this
paper and supply comments.

I apologize to the list serve owner for not noting the
attachment size prior to sending the first message.

--- John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would agree, but you keep citing the wrong paper. 
> I
> had sent you the McGregor and Land 1977 paper.  That
> is my frustration.  Again, I have attached the paper
> since I do not want to be accused on only giving
> selected information.  PLEASE read page 802 and
> reply.
> 
> As for your page you sent, you will notice that as
> you
> go down the first five sets of data for the combined
> cities, the observed values do not change.  As you
> say, the observed values do not change as they are
> facts.  However, the expected values do change as
> more
> data is used to develop the linear trend. 
> 
> I would appreciate anyone who has looked at this
> 1977
> paper and data to comment.  If I am wrong, I will
> acknowledge this.  Again, I am ONLY discussing the
> 1977 paper.  
> 
> --- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > 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!!!
> > . . .
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are
> generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed,
> obscure and feeble thought."
> Hugh Blair, 1783
> 
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
> mobile phone. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs