AW: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes

[John Jacobus]

I am not sure what you are referring to.  Are you
selecting only those examples that statisfy you claims
and leaving other out?

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> John:
>  
> 
> From BEIR VII-Phase2, Prepublication Copy
> Uncorrected Proofs, p.294-295:
> 
>  
> 
> "Lundell and others (1996) reported more
> specifically on the risk of breast cancer among
> women from this cohort. The mean absorbed dose to
> the breast was 0.39 Gy (range <0.01, 35.8 Gy). 75
> breast cancer cases were found in the cohort during
> the follow-up period. A significant linear
> dose-response relationship was observed, with an ERR
> of 0.38 per Gy (95% CI 0.09, 0.85) and an EAR of
> 0.41 per 10^4 PY/Gy. This was not modified by age at
> exposure or by dose to the ovaries. The ERR
> increased significantly with time since exposure,
> however, with an ERR at one Gy of 2.25 (95% CI 0.59,
> 5.62) 50 years or more after exposure. The EAR was
> 22.9 per 10^4 PY/Gy." 
> 
>  
> 
> <...> p.295-296:
> 
> "Pooled analyses of the data on breast cancer and
> the intracranial tumors from the two Swedish
> hemangioma cohorts were also carried out. In the
> pooled breast cancer analyses (Lundell and others
> 1999), 245 breast cancer cases diagnosed between
> 1958 and 1993 were available. The ERR was estimated
> to be 0.35 per Gy (95% CI 0.18,0.59) and the EAR
> 0.72/10^4PY/Gy (95% CI 0.39, 1.14). There was no
> evidence of an effect of time since exposure on the
> ERR; the EAR, however, increased with time since
> exposure. Neither age at exposure, dose-rate, or
> ovarian dose appeared to have an effect on the ERR."
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Given the data - in contrast to the imposed fit
> parameters - and the focus on exposures say below 1
> Gy, I consider this account by BEIR VII a blatant
> misrepresentation of the hemangioma findings, unless
> of course you 'know' the LNT postulate to be true.
> 
>  
> 
> Given the following evaluation on page 331, I am
> totally at a loss to grasp their later account of
> the Cardis 1995 findings:
> 
>  
> 
> "Studies of populations with occupational radiation
> exposures are of relevance for radiation protection
> in that most workers have received protracted
> low-level exposures (a type of exposure of
> considerable importance for radiation protection of
> the public and of workers). Further, studies of some
> occupationally-exposed groups, particularly in the
> nuclear industry, are well suited for the DIRECT
> ESTIMATION [my capitals] of the effects of low doses
> and dose rates of ionizing radiation (Cardis and
> others 2000)."
> 
>  
> 
> In table 8-7, p.357, they report - apart from their
> half-hearted comments on p.356 without any cue what
> the data(!) really show - an ERR per Gy of 2.2
> (0.1,5.7) as a relevant estimate of the
> leukemia-excluding-CLL risk for low doses and dose
> rates. It is really hard to belief.
> 
>  
> 
> If you find pertinent qualifications regarding these
> studies, please let us know.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards, Rainer
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Sa 09.07.2005 00:29
> An: jjcohen at prodigy.net; Facius, Rainer;
> goldinem at songs.sce.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative
> Processes
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"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


		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/