[ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes

[jjcohen at prodigy.net]

This is an excellent demonstration of BEIR's  bias --- showing that by
sufficiently torturing any data set, one can get it to yield any desired
conclusion.


----- Original Message -----
From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
To: <goldinem at songs.sce.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:33 AM
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes


> Eric:
>
> The issue for me is not really whether BEIR-VII disparaged findings at
variance with their view. Even their sleight of hand dismissal of findings
from ecologic studies or in favour of hormesis is not disquieting me most.
It is the flippancy they are treating those data with which superficially
back their LNT postulate.
>
> If you want to assess by yourself the scrutiny which the BEIR VII
committee applied to peer reviewed data (attention: I mean data and not fit
parameters) just pick two of the publications which figure very prominently
(of course 'positively') in their argument.
>
> 1) Preston D L et al., Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled
analysis of eight cohorts. Radiat. Res. 158(2002)220-225
> and
> 2) Cardis E et al., Effects of low doses and low dose rates of external
radiation: Cancer mortality among nuclear workers in three countries.
Radiat. Res. 142(1995)117-132
>
> In 1) go to table 4 (pp.224-5) and pool the rows HMG and HMS - as the ICRP
did which in turn is quoted by BEIR-VII, e.g., Figure 1-7, SwHaem. Then draw
in a linear-linear plot this pooled breast cancer incidence rate together
with the confidence limits in units of (10^5 PY)^ 1 against organ dose in
mGy. Since we are in the radiation protection business we are interested in
(chronic) exposures below 1000 mGy. Then ask yourself who in his right mind
would represent these data by a straight line through the origin with a
positive slope in order to estimate the risk in this dose range from these
data(!). If you wish to learn more about BEIR-VII scrutiny; plot the SwHaem
rows for the whole dose range in a log-log plot. What do you (in contrast to
BEIR VII) see? And then ponder: Breast cancer is supposed to belong to the
more easily induced radiogenic cancers; babies are considered to represent
the most radiation sensitive age. These data represent the only truly
chronic medical e!
>  xposure analysed so far. If you are not yet satisfied you might wish to
look at the earlier original publications of the haemangioma data (Lundell M
et al., Breast cancer risk after radiotherapy in infancy: ... Radiat. Res.
151(1999)626-632. On page 628 you will read "The statistically significant
ERR was driven mainly by cases with doses >4.0 Gy." In Lundell M et al.,
Breast cancer after radiotherapy for skin hemagioma in infancy. Radiat. Res.
145(1996)225-230 you will read on page 229 "It was the contribution of
subjects with breast doses >1 Gy that produced a positive association
between dose and the subsequent breast cancer risk.". BEIR-VII obviously did
not want to see or know.
>
> In 2) you pick from Table III (p.125) any row you like and this time plot
the SMR given together with the 95% confidence limits. If you don't want to
waste your time you concentrate on all cancers, all leukemia, leukemia
except CLL, colon cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, and lung cancer.
After drawing these SMRs in a linear-linear plot ask yourself what these
data(!) tell you about the cancer risk of chronic low dose exposures, say
below 400 mGy, and in particular how these data compare to the BEIR-VII LNT
estimate in this dose range.
>
> Any student venturing to offer me such a misrepresentation of his data(!)
for a master thesis - not to speak for a PhD thesis - without providing a
compelling theoretical justification I surely would have sent back to square
one. Now search BEIR-VII for such a compelling theoretical justification of
LNT.
>
> You can repeat this exercise for ref. 1) and 2) virtually for any
published epidemiological study for chronic/occupational exposures where
these 'raw´ data are provided and you will find the same evidence. Unless
you are preoccupied with the notion that LNT must hold, you would never
approximate these data with such a line. Unfortunately editors increasingly
are satisfied with statements of fit parameters instead of presentations of
data (the new Cardis paper in BMJ is a very dire case in point). If this
trend continues, you soon will be unable to come to your own conclusions and
you will have to rely on committees like BEIR-VII etc.
>
> Upon request I can supply gif-files of the graphs whose construction I
described above.
>
> Regards, Rainer
>
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> GERMANY
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX:   +49 2203 61970
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
Auftrag von goldinem at songs.sce.com
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juli 2005 17:40
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes
>
> <...> I do not believe that the BEIR panel disparaged any peer-reviewed
published scientific studies.
>
>
> Eric M. Goldin, Ph.D., CHP
> <goldinem at songs.sce.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/