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

[John Jacobus]

How so?  If there are B cancers in the 0 - 1 rad
group, O cancers in the observed group of 1 - 9 rad
group, and E cancers in the expected cohort group not
receiving any radiation exposure, shouldn't the table
on page 802 of the 1977 paper shows that B + O < E if
the population are normalized to the same sizes? 
Since B + O > E, where is the beneficial effect? Is
that hard to understand? You say you studied
epidemiology, so you should understand this process.

And what does "WHI hides the benefit of hormone
replacement by mingling smokers with non-smokers" have
to do with this discussion?

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

> Mingling the 0-1 rad exposures with the 1-9 rad
> exposures, HIDES the hormesis,
> as WHI hides the benefit of hormone replacement by
> mingling smokers with non-smokers.
>  
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 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 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/ 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"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/