[ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes

Sat Jul 9 00:29:38 CEST 2005

Of course, you have read the BEIR VII report.  Right?

--- jjcohen at prodigy.net wrote:

> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- 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 