AW: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes

Sat Jul 9 07:40:17 CEST 2005

John,  

It seems Rainer's info is pretty plain.  BEIR VII misrepresents this data.
Their misrepresentation supports a false claim, or at least implies, that
this evidence supports the LNT.  

The right question for you to ask, the only question worth asking, is:  Does
BEIR VII have ANY data that supports the LNT?  It seems fairly obvious that,
if they did have ANY substantial valid evidence, they would not have to
misrepresent this data.  In fact, if there were ANY substantial evidence,
misrepresenting data as Rainer has shown would only undermine their case.

So then the question is:  Have they had to misrepresent ALL of the data to
fabricate support for the LNT?  

(And of course, this does NOT include the voluminous evidence and specific,
applicable, experiments that explicitly contradict the LNT, which they do not
include at all, although they do allude to a few, which they also
misrepresent.)

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
=========================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of John Jacobus
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:40 PM
> To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; jjcohen at prodigy.net; goldinem at songs.sce.com;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes
> 
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/