[ RadSafe ] Land and McGregor's study ?

[howard long]

Yes, John.
Land's 2003 Survival -- article you ref. below still shows benefit in Fig 1, although obscured by cramming when looking only for harm and not benefit (like the Canadian fluoroscopy study and unlike Cohen's Radon study).
 
Note that below 1 Sv (100 rad) the risk is lower - but those with min. dose had twice the risk.
That's J curve, tending to refute your bureaucracy's convenient Linear No-threshold Hypothesis.  Luckey, Pollycove, Cohen etc all agree >1Sv is unhealthy, but that 1-9 rad acute is beneficial, as the raw bomb data of 34 breast cancers where 42.3 expected suggests.
 
Howard Long    

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Howard,

Is this the article you are refereing to?

D. H. McGregor, C. E. Land, K. Choi, S. Tokuoka, P. I.
Liu, T. Wakabayashi and G. W. Beebe, Breast cancer
incidence among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, 1950–69. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 59, 799–811
(1977).

It is dated 1977. Have you seen the following
reports, which is the most recent evaluation of the
data.
http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/land1607072003.pdf

Of course, it may not prove your beneficial effect,
but it may represent a better evaulation of the
science.




+++++++++++++++++++
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
enough people to make it worth the effort." Herm Albright

-- 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/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe