[ RadSafe ] Re: Chernobyl - no effort to compare with controls, as in Taiwan apts

[howard long]

Wrong again, John.
"Assuming the age and income distributions - same " indeed, was all the anti-nuc Taiwan officials would permit. "However, the findings - are such a departure" "3.5/100,000 person years" vs 116  -- just 3% of expected cancer !! What possible differences in population?
 
Even if all were youngsters, that couldn't account for such vast difference. 
 
Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, there is no population control in this
article. As a person who claims to have studied
epidemiology, you should recognize some potential
problems, e.g., no control of age, life style, etc. 

Read it again with a skeptical eye rather through rosy
glasses. You might learn something new.

--- howard long wrote:
> Dr Luan, like other top scientists, tries to prove
> himself wrong 
> (the basis of the null hypothesis). His efforts to
> control with similar population
> was better than most artcles appearing in medical
> journals.
> 
> Many excellent scientists I know believe he has
> answered, "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective
> Prophylaxis Against Cancer?" (J Am Phys and Surg
> 9:1, 04) affirmatively, far better than 
> Chernobyl cancer claims for persons receiving under
> 10 cGy!
> 
> Howard Long 
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> Of course, one could even demand better Taiwan
> apartment cancer studies. Even Dr. Luan admits it is
> inadequate.
> 
> --- howard long wrote:
> > BBC could insist on data, such as from Dr.
> > Smolinkova, what the cancer rate in adjacent areas
> > is or pre-melt-down cancer death rates there. I do
> > fault the messinger, BBC, since the message is so
> > inconsistent with the Taiwan apt exposure data
> (much
> > LESS cancer) and BBC does not report data. Thanks
> > for passing it on, Joel.
> > 
> > Howard Long
> > 
> > "Baumbaugh, Joel SPAWAR" 
> > wrote:
> > BBC On Line Article: Please don't attack the
> > messenger.... 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4485003.stm
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Joel Baumbaugh (joel.baumbaugh at navy.mil)
> > 
> > SPAWARSYSCEN San Diego
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/