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

[John Jacobus]

"Assuming the age and income distribution the same?" 
Do you call that an analysis of the data?  Sorry, that
was a rhetorical question, as you obvious accept the
results without thinking about the validity of the
data.  

Obviously, Dr. Luan did not try to prove himself wrong
in this report as there is no qualifies in the report.
Just accept the results. There is no long-term
followup of the residents.  He only makes statements
about the validity of the data when it is questioned
about it.  

Again, read the report with a skeptic eye.  Play the
devil's advocate, if you can.  

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

+++++++++++++++++++
"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!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com