[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation

[John Jacobus]

Dr. Luan,
Allow me to make some additional comments.  I do not
expect any answer, because they may not exist.  I am
just posing them to let you know why I question the
conclusions of your paper.  They are certainly no
reflection on your work, but the lack of scientic
follow up by the Tiawanese health agencies.  My guess
is that much of this data is there, but needs to be
collected together.

1.  How do you know that the chronic radiation
prevented the cancers?  Absence of proof one way or
the other is still absence of proof.  Cancers may take
20 to 30 years to develop, and you only have data from
10 years.

2. Again, you have only one data point.  Hiroshima and
Nagasaki data is still being collected.  Is there any
documentation on how many people were examined in each
dosimetry groups?  I do not see those numbers in your
article.

3.  (I assume you meant you tried to borrow a high
dose apartment for tests and not a resident.)  Has the
health of those who lived in the high dose apartment
been monitored over the years?  How about the health
of those living in the other subset of apartments?

4.  I certainly would like to have actual dose rather
than estimates, but you have to deal with what is
available.  Was the dose value correlated with the few
adverse findings?  I do not see that in your paper.  

5 and 6.  I think we both want more studies of be
done. 

--- yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc at hotmail.com> wrote:


---------------------------------

Dear Dr Jacobus:

As you are so concerned about the Co-60 contmianted
apartments incident in Taiwan, I would like to answwer
your question accordingly based on what we observed in
the incident:

!, Cancer takes years to develope, but if it could be
prevented by chronic radiation, it is prevented right
away.

2, We did assume the incidence in Taiwan is the first
human test since 1983, and it did showed the
incrediale and surrendipitous results

3. Might half of the residents moved out of heavy
contaminated apartments and no ones moved in, we tried
to borrow one for test but refused. Most of residents
still live in medium and light contaminated
apartments.

4. I do not care the collective doses, they are not
important and hard to estimated. The experts from
NISOH proposed a model for estimated the doses in the
contaminated apartments, they had obtained the doses
in 12 years for four members in one apartment from
100-250 mSv. and predicated the highest doses in the
heavy containated ones to be five hundred times of
general public. We have to estimated the average doses
roughly based on the Institue of Nuclear Energy
Research (INER) model with dose rate detected by
survey meters in key positions in the apartments. The
rough doses did not affect the health effects
observed, as no matter how much doses of chronic
radiation received by the resdents, all their cancer
mortality aharply reduced.  

5, A more care not only should be done by HPS, ANS and
should be also by National Insitituer of Cancer(NIC).
NIC is so conderned the cancer sitation in USA, the
Taiwan incidence will surely give them some thing to
think. if our study is not only speculative. If our
study is really, we naturally believe the peaceful use
of nuclear enegy and medical use of radiation in
prevetion of cancer will be greatly promoted. 

6, Taiwan is not a member of UN, but  is a quite big
and complete free country. Why the UNSCEAR and WHO do
not do anything with it. If they want to do something,
I think Taiwan will willingly to cooperate, even it
does not prefer nuclear power politically.            


Regards,

Y. C. Luan
===========================================================


>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: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
>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?
. . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"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! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail