[ RadSafe ] "-authors do not report-" data refuting their conclusions!

[howard long]

Cases are hard data, unlike correlations that may be "adjusted".
Indeed, the incidence is generally linear- but there is the J hook,
hidden by generalization from high doses (>50rad)
 
No Linear No Threshold LNT here!
 
Howard Long
 

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
I suggest you read the article as if it was for the
first time. Where do you think the expected number
came from? That is why they change as you go down the
columns. The observed will always stay the same. 
Please explain that observation.

The reasons the authors do not report a benefit is
that they do not see one. Of course, you do because
you have a political agenda. You can take any report
and divine a hidden beneficial result. Just ignore
the mountain of data that contradicts what you
"believe." Why bother with data and science.

--- howard long wrote:
> 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
>