[ RadSafe ] Bomb - Breast Ca with-9 rad LESS than for unexposed

[howard long]

John, your archaic, simplistic, unnatural assumption of LNT perpetuates bureaucratic sloth. It must not infect impressionable newcomers, so , I'll answer again.
 
Table 2 left column, in showing only "0-1, 0-9, 0-50, 0-100, etc" (approx, I don't have it here at home), suggests Land and McGregor's assumption that a little radiation was bad. Numerous studies indexed by Muckerheide (address given before) amply refute this, showing hormesis.
 
The actual cases, 34 B Ca in those exposed to 1-9 rad where 42.3 expected (by method of authors looking only for harm, not benefit), did find O cancer rate higher in exposed than non-exposed at higher levels, using the same methodology for "expected".
 
Only after you state your explanation for these facts will I comment further.
 
Howard Long     

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
You have still not answered my question about the 1977
McGregor and Land article. There is no anaylsis of the
data using the LNT ot any other hypothesis. Yet,
actual cancers exceeded expected based on
epidemiological studies. How do you explain a lack of
a hormetic effect?

You seem to have trouble answering my questions and
want to change the subject. 


--- howard long wrote:

> Fritz Seller's comment answers this.
> 
> Do not pre-select Iowa (Radon) or high dose or low
> dose, but r

+++++++++++++++++++
"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! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/