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

[John Jacobus]

First, let me say thank you for reading the 1977
paper.
How can you say that the data on page 802 of this
paper does not refute the fact that women had less
cancers.  Are you saying that 105 observed cancers are
less than the 96 expected based on epidemiological
studies.  No LNT involved.  I am not talking about the
information about those who received hormetic doses of
0-9 rads.  

Are you having trouble accepting the data?  

And what does "as did the benefit from hormone
replacement when the smokers were mingled in WHI"
supposed to mean?  Why are you throwing this into the
discussion?

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 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 

+++++++++++++++++++
"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!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/