[ RadSafe ] Land and McGregor's study ?

[John Jacobus]

Actually, I do not see any benefit.  But then, I may
not be prejudiced to find one.  In fact, I don't see
any averages that are below the NIC (not in city)
point.  If there was a hormetic effect, I guess that
the values would be less than those who receive not
exposures.  Why do you suppose there are none below
NIC?

I also note the that at 2 Sv and 2.5 Sv, the average
is below the regression curve.  By your logic, these
are also evidence of hormesis.  May be it is not a "J"
but a tilted "S" curve.  

I do see in Figure 2 the linear regression analysis of
the data that at the lowest doses, the ERR averages
>1.0. Of course, the 90% confidence bounds is so
large, you can actually imaging values below 0 ERR
that demonstrate hormesis.

Of course, what do I know.  I am not an
epidemiologist.  I would like to know why you have not
answered my question about the source of your "raw
bomb data?"  Is it possible that when the data is
correct for age at time of bombing, the "beneficial"
effect of 1-9 rad exposure is not there?

And one more time, is the citation I give the paper
you cite?


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

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com