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

[howard long]

Not necessarily. To illustrate, look at Cohen's graph where the larger populations  with lower exposure to radon had higher lung cancer mortality rates. Just arithmetic.
 
Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
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 wrote:

> MINGLING is the error.
> Howard
> 
> John Jacobus 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