[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation - nuclear powerpromotion

[John Jacobus]

Let me try this as I understand the problem.  (I am
sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.  Or if
they don't agree with me.)

Say the cancer rate is 0.05%, or 500 cancers expected
in 10,000 people.

5000 people receive no exposure and 250 cancers are
observed.  5000 people receive 1-9 rad and 200 cancers
are observed because the radiation had a "beneficial
effect."  (If they did not receive any radiation, 250
cancers would have be observed, and there would be a
total of 500 cancers in the total 10,000 population as
would be expected.)  In this population of 0-9 rads of
both unirradiated and irradiated people, 450 cancers
would be observed in this population.  

You do not hold the populations to the same sizes.

Of course, in the 1977 Land and McGregor paper, the
observed breast cancers exceeded the expected.  That
is my point.


--- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:

> I am no expert on these matters, but isn't he
> suggesting that if the 0 
> exposure folks are higher than expected, and the 1-9
> group is lower, that 
> you have evidence hormesis is at work?  In fact, if
> the very low level 
> exposures fare just as well as the 1-9 group, it
> would refute hormesis, no? 
> Or at least it would only support the notion that
> low exposure doesn't hurt 
> much, but that would also refute LNT.
> 
> Syd H. Levine
> AnaLog Services, Inc.
> Phone:  270-276-5671
> Telefax:  270-276-5588
> E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
> URL:  www.logwell.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> To: "howard long" <hflong at pacbell.net>
> Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:17 AM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency
> remediation - nuclear 
> powerpromotion
> 
> 
> > That may be true, but that is not the problem
> here.
> > Again, what is the problem with the data in the
> 1977
> > report.  If their was a beneficial effect,
> wouldn't
> > the number of breast cancers for those receiving
> 1-9
> > rads plus those receiving 0 rads still be less
> than
> > the expected number of cancers?  No LNT, just
> > epidemiology.
> >
> > --- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> MINGLING is the error.
> >> Howard
> >>
> >> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> 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 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 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.
> >> > > . . .
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > "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!?
> > Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over
> 17,000 guides!
> > http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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!? 
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide