[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation
John Jacobus
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 13 21:45:50 CEST 2005
Dr. Luan,
I do not know what the radiation protection community
wants. I certainly believe in good science.
Unfortunately, I think that this study needs to
expanded. As you know, cancers make take years to
develop? When were the initial medical tests
performed? Have others been conducted? From what I
read, I believe that you assumed that the individuals
lived in the apartments since 1983. Did some leave
and others move in? If so, then your collective dose
calculations will be in error. I noticed that you
state that residents who received normal background
doses (< 1 mSv/y) were given exams upon request. Why
did you compare the high exposure group with this low
dose group, as the A-bomb survivors are?
These are the kind of issues that I think need to be
addressed, and I am sure there are probably others.
It appears that a lot was done to determine the
exposure of the current residents.
Until a more detailed study is done, I would think
that your conclusions are speculative. I certainly
would like to see this work reviewed.
As to why cancers appear to be increasing, an aging
population, smoking, and diet are obvious factors.
--- yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc at hotmail.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Dear John:
Most the radiation protection communities do not want
the experience of Taiwan contmiantion to be true, but
there still some want to prove whether is it true, and
I hope HPS will stick to it.
EPI study on the radiation harmful to humanity is
useless, it is only good for study the beneficial
effects to humanigy. Not only Dr Luckey indicated
cancers are increasing in States, nobady can tell why,
the cancers are increasing in Taiwan is definite based
on goverment data and media news. I do not know why
either. Recently the governemnt strictly prohibited to
use the traditional Chinese medicine produced in
Taiwan and smuggling from Peijing, China on the ground
that they contained to high toxic chemcials as Asenic,
Lead, mercury, etc. Is there any thing to do with the
toxic chemicals? like the toxical radiation could
reduce cancers?
Our study did involve the age construction, we compare
the total cancer mortality in assuming the residents
are same to the population. The Taiwan contaminated
apartments incident reamined for 21 years, no cancer
deaths change observed. many have moved from the heavy
contaminated houses, if the residents to be cancer
incidence or died of cancers, the medias will not miss
such topics.
Best regards,
Y.C. Luan
----------------------------------------------------
original
message---------------------------------------------------
>From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
>To: yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc at hotmail.com>,
blc+ at pitt.edu, uniqueproducts at comcast.net
>CC: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com,
hflong at pacbell.net, jjcohen at prodigy.net,
radsafe at radlab.nl, radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl,
shliu at iner.gov.tw
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency
remediation
>Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Dr. Luan,
>Thank you for your reply. Like you, I was surprised
>of the reports of no cancers among the apartment
>residents to be incredible. Unfortunately, I still
>find the reports to be incredible.
>
>My belief is that without a proper study of the
>exposure and health effects of the residence, this
>event will not carry much weight in the scientific
>community. I am glad that you agree with me. I
>believe that the media news. Scientists should do
>science and report it to the media. And while animal
>studies form the basis of testing the effectiveness
of
>many medicines, only clinical trials in humans
provide
>the proof. I have believed that good epidemiological
>studies of human populations who have lived under
>high, continual background exposure levels for many
>years provide the best source to study the effects of
>radiation on overall human health. In your Taiwan
>situation, the activity has been decreasing over
time.
> What if the exposure had remained constant for 10
or
>20 years?
>
>As for Dr. Luckey's claim that cancer is increasing
in
>the U.S., is in error with the data. I was at a
>presentation he gave a number of years ago. Some of
>the problems involved looking at the absolute number
>of cancers without taking into account the aging of
>the population. Older populations have more cancers.
>In the U.S. the life expectancy was 45 years of age,
>so few people lived long enough to get cancers.
>Currently our life expectance is about 75, and the
>incidences of cancer increase after age 55 or so.
>Consider the age of the people you know who have
>cancer. When you were young, how many of your
friends
>had cancer?
>
>I should make clear that I am not a doctor. I would
>not anyone to get the idea that I have certain
>qualifications that I have not earned.
>
>
>--- yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>Dr John Jacobus:
>
>I always encourage all scientists to create a vaccine
>like polio, inflrenza and dipteria for cancers, and I
>showed them the effect of chronic radiation could
>prevent cancers, but I do not know what would be the
>proper way to do it. Since the Taiwan residents
lived
>continously in the Co-60 apartment, their cancers
were
>effectively prevented, how could we do that? could we
>give a tiny piece of Co-60 for putting on the living
>room ceilig? Dr. Sakai tested mice with low-dose-rate
>are good for reducing tumor, diabetis and AIDS, I
>encouraged him to inject certain long half-life
>isotope to mice for obervation of the reduction
>effects.
>
>You said the Taiwan data without a vigorous review
can
>not be considered significant, that is right and that
>is why I always try to have the interantional
>communities to confirm it. I worked for atomic and
>radiation protection for almost 50 years, I have to
>have some claims about radiation effects induced to
>the irradiated residents for 6 years and they had
>continously received the radiation for 16 years. When
>the first medical review (no official minute or
>record,only media report) by about 1000 residesnts
>(with >5 mSv/y) by many nuclear medical doctors from
>the imortant hospitals in 1992, my first conclusion
>was that no one cancer death was unbelivable, When
the
>residents grew to about 4000 (included residents with
>dose> 1mSv/y) and still no cancer deaths in 1996, my
>conclusion to it was almost impossible. I presnet a
>public letter to the country to worry no more of
Co-60
>contamination, I was invited by Dr Muckerheide to
>present our paper" chronic radiation might be an
>effective immunity of cancers"
>
>I do not care whether ICRP, IRPA etc consider the
>chronic radation is always beneficial to people, If I
>could convenice them, there will be possility for
>radiation to be used as vaccine to reduce the misery
>of cancers.Two of my closet colleages died in cancer
>in two years and one is suffering an incidence, The
>cancer mortality increased two times in 20 years in
>Taiwan, and some thing the same in USA according Dr
>Luckey. I hope there is vaccine for cancer and which
>will be really effective. I saw influenza had revers
>effective to people when there was SARS in Taiwan.
>
>Best regards
>
>Y.C. Luan Senor Scientist of NuSATA and Consultant
of
>NBC Society
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
>
>
> >To: yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc at hotmail.com>,
>blc+ at pitt.edu, uniqueproducts at comcast.net
> >CC: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com,
>hflong at pacbell.net, crispy_bird at yahoo.com,
>jjcohen at prodigy.net, radsafe at radlab.nl,
>radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl, shliu at iner.gov.tw
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency
>remediation
> >Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Dr. Luan,
> >While this may seem like a noble endeavor, e.g.,
> >reducing the incidence of cancers, and obviously a
> >belief in the power of hormesis, even your comments
>do
> >not seem to support your efforts. The purpose of
>most
> >immunity programs is to have the body's immune
system
> >to certain biological agents. This is the basis
for
> >vaccine programs like polio, influenza, dipteria,
>etc.
> > If you have to continually take an agent to boost
>the
> >immune system, no immune response is being created.
> >Do you have any proof of long lasting effects that
>did
> >not involve continuous exposures?
> >
> >Also, without a rigous review of the Taiwan data,
I,
> >personnally, would not consider the result
> >significant. As one who has worked in radiation
> >safety and science for over 29 years, I have
learned
> >to be careful about claims of radiation effects and
> >measurements.
> >
> >--- yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >
> >Dear friends:
> >
> >Please keep in mind that our disscussion is
trying
> >to develop a simple vaccine injection for immune of
> >the most miserable cancers. The idea originated
from
> >the 26 Pu heavy contaminated
> >atomic bomb workers and the 23 fallout heavy
> >contaminated Japanese fishermen, died in much lower
> >cancer mortailty than the normal population in the
> >world in 25%. Their number are smalll, but I
believe
> >with high statistical significane. And the most
> >important idea comes from the 10,000 residents who
> >living in the Co-60 contaminated apartments. Using
> >Co-60 for immunie of cancers in external radiation
> >might be still a way. If the immunie of cancer turn
>to
> >be true, Please do not forget the Co-60 irradiated
> >residents in Taiwan.
> >
> >Y.C. Luan
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > >From: Bernard Cohen <blc+ at pitt.edu>
> > >To: Jay Caplan <uniqueproducts at comcast.net>
> > >CC: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com, howard long
> ><hflong at pacbell.net>, John Jacobus
> ><crispy_bird at yahoo.com>, jjcohen
> ><jjcohen at prodigy.net>, radsafe <radsafe at radlab.nl>,
> >yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc at hotmail.com>,
> >radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl, shliu at iner.gov.tw
> > >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency
> >remediation
> > >Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:25:58 -0400
> > >
> > >According to ICRP-30, the weighted committed dose
> >equivalent for
> > >tritiated water is 1.7^-11 Sv/Bq, or about 60
>rem/Ci.
> >Thus to get 1
> > >rem you should ingest about 16 mCi of tritiated
> >water.
> > >
> > >Jay Caplan wrote:
> > >
> > >>Dr. Cohen,
> > >>With a 10 day biological half life, what amount
> >would deliver 1
> > >>rem? Is the
> > >>fact that tritium only emits a low voltage beta
a
> >deficiency vis
> > >>anticipated
> > >>hormesis compared to x-ray or gamma?
> > >>Thanks
> > >>Jay Caplan
> > >>
> > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "jjcohen"
> ><jjcohen at prodigy.net>
> > >>To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>;
>"howard
> >long"
> > >><hflong at pacbell.net>;
> ><dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com>
> > >>Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>; "yuan-chi
luan"
> > >><nbcsoc at hotmail.com>;
> > >><radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl>;
> ><uniqueproducts at comcast.net>;
> > >><shliu at iner.gov.tw>
> > >>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:26 PM
> > >>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation
deficiency
> >remediation
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Some answers to questions regarding RDS
>(Radiation
> >Deficiency
> > >>>Syndrome)
> > >>>
> > >>>Q: What is the optimal dose for humans?
> > >>>A: Optimal dose would be subject to individual
> >differences, but
> > >>>would
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>likely
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>range somewhere between 1.0 and 10.0 rem/a
> > >>> (0.01 and 0.1 Sv/a). If a single value is
> >desired, probably
> > >>>3.0 rem/a
> > >>>(0.03Sv/a) would suffice.
> > >>>
> > >>>Q: How to identify those with radiation
>deficiency?
> > >>>A: Just about everybody, except perhaps
residents
> >of Ramsar or
> > >>>Kerala.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>(see
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>previous answer)
> > >>>
> > >>>Q: How about Potassium for supplementary
>radiation?
> > >>>A: No good! Specific activity level too low for
> >internal
> > >>>application
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>(would
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>need too much)--- also could screw up
electrolyte
> > >>> balance. For external, also not
good---see
> >discussion by
> > >>>Howard Long
> > >>>
> > >>>Q: Just move to Denver?
> > >>>A: Why bother. It would only get you a small
> >fraction of the way
> > >>>toward
> > >>>optimal dose level.
> > >>>
> > >>>Q: X-rays?
> > >>>A; Not uniform, inconvenient, and expensive
> > >>>
> > >>>Q: Why supplementary radiation via Tritium?
> > >>>A: It is cheap, abundant, can be easily
>distributed
> >as water, and
> > >>>is
> > >>>naturally occuring (for those who like
"organic"
> >isotopes.)
> > >>> --- if its natural, it must be good!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>You are currently subscribed to the radsafe
>mailing
> >list
> > >>radsafe at radlab.nl
> > >>
> > >>For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe
>and
> >other settings
> > >>visit:
> >http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> >+++++++++++++++++++
> >"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/
>
>
>
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++
>"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/
+++++++++++++++++++
"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
More information about the radsafe
mailing list