AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] DNA Damage and Oxydative Processes

[John Jacobus]

Rainer,
I apology for not being clear in my response.  First
of all, I am not an epidemiologist.  When papers are
cited, I assume that they have been reviewed and
vetted by others knowledgeable in the field.  For me
to review the BEIR VII or cite published articles in
an authoriative manner would be inappropriate.

However, I believe that you were supporting the claims
that the BEIR VII is biased.  You cite three
paragraphs that you say prove the bias.  However, I do
not understand what your points are.  If the articles
were in peer reviewed journals, were challenges
published to the original articles?  Can you cite
them? 

Unfortunately I, will be attending a meeting this week
and will be unable to examine the Nature article you
cite below.  Can you give some idea of what I should
be looking for? What do you mean "in view of the items
7,9,(13),14,(15)?"

I would comment and say that chronic exposures
probably do present a different dose response than an
acute expouser.  That was stated in the BEIR V report
and others.

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

> John:
> 
> I did not intend to "claim" anything whatsoever. 
>  
> 
> I presented original data(!)  from peer reviewed
> publications, pointed out their misrepresentation in
> BEIR VII, and I offered my personal evaluation
> thereof. I did not arbitrarily focus on these two
> sources of data.
> 
>  
> I invite you to locate in the BEIR-VII report and
> present here studies referred therein on 
> 
> (i) carcinogenic effects 
> 
> (ii) in healthy man 
> 
> (iii) from chronic exposures 
> 
> (iv) to doses well below 1 Gy
> 
>  
> which 
> 
> 
> (A) feature more or equally prominently in BEIR VII,
> 
> 
> (B) provide an insight into the 'raw' DATA, which in
> turn 
> 
> (C) reveal incidence/mortality dependencies
> supporting rather than contradicting the LNT
> postulate. 
> 
>  
> 
> I will be happy to continue this discussion, yet
> only with regard to such data that you might
> present.
> 
>  
> 
> Furthermore, in order to find out what I am
> referring to, I urge you to consult the table 1 in 
> 
> Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M. L., de Vries, R.
> Nature 435(2005)737-738
> 
> and contemplate the two examples brought up by me in
> view of the items 7,9,(13),14,(15).
> 
>  
> 
> Perhaps you will also be able to present arguments
> whether or not the BEIR VII authors should by
> exempted from these criteria specifying "bad"
> behaviour and from the usual consequences. 
> 
>  
> 
> Regards, Rainer
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Sa 09.07.2005 05:39
> An: Facius, Rainer; jjcohen at prodigy.net;
> goldinem at songs.sce.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: 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:
> <...>
> 
> 
> 


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