[ RadSafe ] Zebras and overlooked hormesis

[howard long]

Indeed, Land and McGregor did an excellent job of collecting, analyzing and reporting scientifically. Who was looking for hormesis then (1977)?
 
This is like the vast N Shipyard Workers Study, in which Cameron (one of its prestigious advisory panel) only later found a 0.76 mortality rate of workers exposed to an extra 0.5 rad. No benefit showed up in the original one tail test of significance because no one expected benefit from LDR. Now, we should. That is the point of my discussion here. 
 
Billions of dollars and millions of HP hours are spent on ALARA that actually deprives people of benefit, instead of on the growing need for more nuclear power plants, medical nuclear uses,
saving homes and offices from demolition because of actually beneficial doses from a dirty bomb, etc.
 
Howard Long
 

Gerald Nicholls <Gerald.Nicholls at dep.state.nj.us> wrote:
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 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