[ RadSafe ] Hormesis Hidden! "-authors do not report-" !

[Gerald Nicholls]

Dr. Long,

A physician I know is fond of the oft quoted maxim he learned in
medical school: "When you hear hoofbeats, don't look for zebras."  In
other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.  It's
far easier for me to believe that the authors of the paper under
discussion simply did their job of collecting, analyzing and reporting
what they found in a scientifically objective manner.  Otherwise, I have
to come up with a conspiracy scenario that involves the authors, peer
reviewers and government agencies that provide funding for such work to
explain why hormesis is "hidden."   



Gerald P. Nicholls
NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection
609-633-7964
gerald.nicholl at dep.state.nj.us

>>> howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> 03/10/05 02:13PM >>>
Not statistical manipulations, but actual cases, convince me-
34 cases of breast cancer where 42.3 expected when 1-9rad, 
109 cases where 127.8 expected <1rad exposure .(1979 report)

"What I find interesting is that the authors do not report this
benefit."
Exactly! I have no "devine"(sic) insight, but greater skepticism.
 
Howard Long
 

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:

No, I do not hide the benefits. I am just quoting
what the authors provided in there report. I have
included the one page 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 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
_______________________________________________
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