[ RadSafe ] Re: "Public Protection - " and hormesis

[John Jacobus]

Howard,
It is hard to have a discussion with you when your do
not understand the science or how to communicate on
the Internet.  

First, you cite an article by Land and MacGregor. What
is the source?  For all I know, you are marking up
this information.

Assuming that this article(?) the expected number of
cancers was 42.3.  What was the confidence interval? 
I believe that you claimed to have studied
epidemiology.  If so, you should understand the if the
number of observed cancers (34) was within the
confidence interval, they are not probably
significant.

What do the authors think of the data.  Do they
consider it significant, or relevant?  Have other
studies confirmed these results/  I suspect you are
"cherry picking" data that support your views and
ignore any studies that do not.

I know Alan Brodsky.  He is not a statistician, but a
well regarded health physicist.  He would not be
pressured by the publisher or the Heatlh Physics
Society.  He certainly does not distort scientific
data.

With regard to driving a car and managing diabetes, I
cannot say how well you do in either aspect. I have
not seen the results of your actions.  However, your
inability to understand simple statistics and
radiation protection values, e.g., 500 vs. 0.5
mrem/hr, gives me pause.

I await the citation of the Land and McGregor study.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Lewhelgeson at helge.com looked at Brodsky's Public
> Protection from Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological
> Terrorism 2004 briefly with me this week and was as
> surprised as was I to see,
> "The risk of dying of cancer for a person exposed at
> average age is about 5 chances in 10,000 for a total
> body exposure of 1 rem -" (Biological Effects of
> Radiation, p760)
> Although intended to reassure, that seems to follow
> LNTand be refuted by Land and McGregor's study of
> Breast Cancer Incidence Among Atomic Bomb Survivors,
> where with 1-9 R there were 34 when 42.3 was
> "expected" in that population!
>  
> Fear of any cancer increase from 1 rem acute dose (
> like a CT scan), must have been extrapolated beyond
> Brodsky's data. Lew says he is a sharp statistician,
> so I must conclude that he was politically pressured
> by the publisher, the Health Physics Society. I
> wrote him this.
>  
> I was reassured by adjacent, "Acute effects: No
> likely serious debilitation effects below 25R"
>  
> John, everyone would do well not to depend only on
> government (or doctors) for their safety.
> I "mis-spoke" and Todd promptly corrected with "You
> mean 500urem/hr" (another message).
> With Nucalert, palmRAD, Nuclear War Survival Skills,
> and now the cumbersome pro "Public Protection - ", I
> or anyone able to drive a car or manage diabetes can
> be confident of safety with radiation exposure,
> without the panic that comes from dependency - as
> with a nanny state.
>  
>  It helps to know that 10 rad actually reduces
> cancer (hormesis).  
>  
> Howard Long
>  
> 
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Personally, I find your inability to read and relate
> radiation exposures and exposure rates to be very
> troubling. How can you possible espouse information
> about radiation risk and benefits without any real
> understanding of the subject? If you were to detect
> an increase in radiation for a "dirty" bomb, you
> would
> not even know what to tell the public what the doses
> really are!
> 
> As usual you cite studies that either do not support
> your claims of hormesis, like the NSW study, or are
> incomplete, like the Tiawan study. But, again, you
> can't even read the equipment you are using.
> 
> --- howard long wrote:
> 
> > It is 0.5 mrem/hour that I read 1 cm inside my
> > part-thorium belt, NOT 500 mrem/hr.
> > Note that I made the same error wth ambient "15
> > mrem/hr" (1,000x actual)
> > My misstatement must have been from mental block
> of
> > the decimal and zeros when reading the palmRAD.
> That
> > error is unlikely when monitoring exposures with
> an
> > all-too-possible dirty bonb.
> > 
> > Todd, you are correct. The dose I believe would
> give
> > best hormesis is about 1 mrad/hr for 8 hours a day
> > for full body radiation to receive about 4
> rad/year.
> > This is more than the NSworkers received (0.5 rad)
> > but much less than the Taiwan apt dwellers.
> > 
> > Local exposure with the belt I'm trying because U
> > ore was not readily available in quantity to put
> > under a bed for whole body exposure. So far, the 5
> > lb belt is a nuisance I don't expect to be
> repeated.
> > It will take 50 rad locally and repeatedly to
> > increase blood supply at inflammation like
> bursitis
> > or gangrene, to give prompt improvement useful for
> > LDR treatment
> > 
> > Publicity of hormesis may reduce panic with public
> > exposure. Erroneous current belief is that a
> little
> > radiation increases cancer risk, although the
> > opposite is true.
> > 
> > Howard Long 
> > 
> > 
> > John Jacobus wrote:
> > 
> > And why would you want to expose the skin to 500
> > mrem/hr? How did you measure this dose rate? Is
> this
> > a deep or shallow dose rate? (I am assuming you
> know
> > the difference.)
> > 
> > You may want to check with some radiation
> > oncologists
> > about protracted skin damage. My understanding is
> > that
> > when you get up to about 30 Gy (3000 rad) you
> start
> > to
> > see effects like dermal atrophy, etc. 
> > 
> > --- howard long wrote:
> > 
> > > DU "Poison Dust" sounds like just what I need
> for
> > my
> > > hormesis belt.
> > > 
> > > To raise my exposure from the ambient 15
> mrem/hr,
> > > and have the benefits of the Taiwan apt dwellers
> > > (Chen, Luan, JAm PsMar 2004), 1/6 the cancer, or
> > the
> > > nuclear shipyard workers,( 0.76 mortality rate
> > when
> > > extra 0.5 rem), I've been wearing a 5 lb belt of
> > > used welding rods, 2% thorium. I can get up to
> 500
> > > mrem/h on about 500scm of skin that way.
> > > 
> > > Who knows the typical radiation of DU on contact
> > and
> > > at, say 10 cm?
> > > 
> > > Howard Long 
> 
> 
> 




=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"Baltimore is actually a very safe city if you are not involved in the drug trade."
DR. PETER BEILENSON, the city's health commissioner.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/