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

[howard long]

Again,
Mingling those with no excess radiation (0-1rad) with those who may have had a hormetic dose of 1-9 rad, obscures hormesis (as did the benefit from hormone replacement when the smokers were mingled in WHI). 
 
P 802 data of the attachment in no way refutes the fact that women receiving 1-9rad had LESS breast cancer than those receiving more - and less! That is NOT consistent with lazy-man's LNT!
 
1-9rad is beneficial and should not scare people getting it from nuclear power waste or Hanford or dirty bomb into huge expenditures! Only bureaucrats benefit from the LNT myth.
 
Howard Long

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 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 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