[ RadSafe ] Re: McGregor and Land (1977) Hormesis Hidden!

[John Jacobus]

No, I do not hide the benefits.  I am just quoting
what the authors provided in there report.  If you
wish, I can can send the one page, or the whole
article that I quoted from so you can see what the
authors wrote.  It appears that there are more
observed cancers in 1977 than expected.  I will let
you figure out what they say.

In Table 2 of the 1979 paper, you quote the first line
which is all doses >/= 0.  If you look down the
columns 1/3 of the way down to the dose range of 0-9
rad for both cities, the observed and expected are
identical 109/108 and 34/35.  From what I understand
(see page 18), what you are looking at is the data as
is extended, and how it correlates with a linear fit. 
If you consider the bottom set of data for the two
cities (1/3 way down Table 2), you are trying to fit a
linear curve to the data associated with the
populations receiving 0, and up to 9 rads.  There is
no demonstrated effect, good or bad.  The top lines
still list the same number of breast cancers, but the
expected number is different as the linear fit has
more data at higher doses, the the curve has been
tilted upward as more data "bins" are added on the
curve.  I am not sure if you follow this arguement, or
even want to.  You seem to have your mind made up.

What I find interesting is that in the authors do not
report this benefit.  I guess you have some sort of
devine insight into the results they do not.  I assume
that the authors analyzed the data several ways and
came to the conclusions they did.  

By the way, I have a nice PDF file of the 1979 and
1977 papers if anyone wants to look at the data
themselves.  My purpose is not to convince anyone on a
position, but to look at the science and arguements
with a critical eye.  I give others that opportunity
by offering anyone the papers I have.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> John quotes conclusions:
> "Observed 144, Expected 140" 
> (TOTAL rates for breast cancer are unchanged in bomb
> survivors!) 
> and, "0-9 rads O 105, E 96." 
>  
>   John's quoted conclusion, HIDES BENEFITof "1-9
> rad: O 34, E 42.3," (Table 2 in the body of the
> paper, attached to e-mail for those of you
> requesting it) 
> and BENEFIT at 0-1rad: "O 109, E 127" 
>  
> There were increasingly hIgh rates with exposure
> increase over 10 rad (table 2), reflecting the harm
> expected from high doses, 50-100-200->200 rads
>  
> Why, like with the Kyoto press summary, would
> conclusions differ from the data?
> I won't risk speculation, for fear of sounding
> cynical.
>  
> Howard Long
>  
>  
>  
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >From 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).
> 
> "If there were serious bias in the breast cancer
> ascertainment, incidence estimates for those
> individuals not in the city ATB (at time of bombing)
> or individuals exposed to low doses of radiation
> (0-9
> rads) should have been well below those ordinarily
> found in Janpan. However, comparisons of observed
> numbers of cases with the expected numbers based on
> age-specific incidence generally taken as
> representatvie for Japan, e.g., those for the Miyagi
> and Okayana prefectures, show no evidence that the
> ascertainment was, in fact, short of expectaion for
> the group not in either city and for the group
> exposed
> to 0-9 rads:
> 
> Group                   Observed Expected
> Not in either city       39         44
> Exposed to 0-9 rads 105       96
> Total                        144     140
> 
> 
> If anyone would like the original report, let me
> know.


+++++++++++++++++++
"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!? 
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. 
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/