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

[Syd H. Levine]

But do you disagree with his take on the matter?  Would it not be a surprise 
if hormesis was not operative with regard to radiation just as it is with so 
many other things?  The surprise would be that LNT is correct I should 
think.

Syd H. Levine
AnaLog Services, Inc.
Phone:  270-276-5671
Telefax:  270-276-5588
E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
URL:  www.logwell.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerry Blackwood" <gpblackwood at sbcglobal.net>
To: "howard long" <hflong at pacbell.net>; "John Jacobus" 
<crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Bomb - Breast Ca with-9 rad LESS than for unexposed


> "John, your archaic, simplistic, unnatural assumption of LNT perpetuates 
> bureaucratic sloth. It must not infect impressionable newcomers, so , I'll 
> answer again."
>
> Dang Howard...do you sit up all night thin'in this stuff up?
>
>
>
> howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 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 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> "Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those 
> who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>