[ RadSafe ] Re: Benefit from 0.1 Sv

Mon Mar 14 20:16:53 CET 2005

Have you read the other paper: McGregor and Land,
1977?  When you have let me know.

Again, if you look for the data to support your view,
you will find it, or reinterpete it so it fits.  I am
just surprised that you actually believe that there
may be some questionable aspects of the data.  Did you
actually look at what I wrote?  Maybe you should look
at all of the studies with an unbiased eye.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> "34 breast cancer cases observed" with [0.01-0.09
> Sv] exposure where
> "42.3 cases expected" in population match.  (Land
> and Mc Gregor, Bomb Survivors)
>  
> John, granted that this could be by chance (p about
> 0.05?, given the consistency with higher  doses), it
> certainly is evidence for benefit, especially since
> it is consistent with all other available info, like
> NSWS, Britsh Radiologists, clinical effects, etc.,
> in Muckerheide's large index.
>  
> Why do you keep fighting hormesis? To keep your job?
>  
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am not sure of your point, but I am not surprised
> that the risks, or benefits, at low doses were not
> of
> concern in the past. I don't think that doses below
> 0.1 Sv are present significant risks or benefits. I
> admire you perseverance. 
> 
> With the question of bias I think that you will find
> it in science, as science is a human endeavor. The
> saving grace is that, as you point out, there is
> verification. Certainly, different models show
> different relationships things. One thing that I
> believe is that biology is not like physics. When we
> extrapolate from large doses to low doses, you have
> cell repair, "bystander effects," and other
> interesting stuff going on. It is possible that
> there
> may not be an adequate model for low dose, low-dose
> rate effects. 
> 
> However, I think that bias is dangerous when you
> only
> select those studies that support your view and
> ignore
> others that do not. As I have been trying to point
> out, the McGregor and Land paper of 1977 certainly
> does not support a hormetic effect. Second, you
> cannot pick out one piece of data from a paper and
> ignore the rest. That is poor science. Do you agree?
> 
> --- "Fritz A. Seiler" wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > As a physicist when I joined the then ITRI (now
> > LRRI) 
> > in 1980, I dared - after a while at my new job -
> > make
> > the suggestion that not doing any experiments at
> low
> > 
> > exposures does inflate the experimental data set
> > with
> > measurements that are in favor of the LNT. The
> cold
> > reaction of the radiobiologists then made me feel
> as
> > if I had uttered a string of obscenities. I can
> > still
> > hear the more polite ones saying: "Testing down
> > there
> > where we know that there is nothing?!" "There is
> > just
> > nothing going on down there, and DOE would not let
> > us
> > waste animals and money on such fruitless
> > duplications
> > of effort anyway."
> > I soon earned a reputation as an arrogant
> physicist
> > who
> > wanted to duplicate measurements already done, did
> > not
> > trust their older measurements and so I then kept
> > mostly
> > quiet on such matters, started to give talks at
> > meetings
> > and to publish papers in the open literature about
> > the 
> > Scientific Method. From this thread, I can see
> that
> > the
> > "doing of good science" is a topic that is not
> > generally
> > agreed on in these mailings. 
> > So here I go again! Simply stated, "Good Science"
> is
> > an
> > epistemological process of model prediction
> followed
> > by 
> > an experimental verification, and that has nothing
> > to do 
> > with bias. A bias comes only in when we decide not
> > to 
> > verify for reasons of an unfavorable model
> > prediction...
> > ....See my comments above and those by J. Jacobus
> > below!!
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Fritz
> > 
> > 
> > PS: Some of our papers along that line of
> thinking:
> > 
> > Seiler, F.A., & Alvarez, J.L. (1994). The Use of
> > the
> > Scientific Method in Risk Analysis. Technology:
> > Journal of the Franklin Institute, 331A, 53-58.
> > 
> > And by request of the editors of HERA, we put a
> > treatise on
> > the Scientific Method in our 'radon' paper:
> > 
> > Seiler, F.A., and J.L. Alvarez, “Is the
> ’Ecological
> > 
> > Fallacy’ a Fallacy?” Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 
> > 6, 921-941, 2000.
> > 
> > 
> >
>
*****************************************************
> > Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
> > Sigma Five Consulting: Private:
> > P.O. Box 1709 P.O. Box 437
> > Los Lunas, NM 87031 Tomé, NM 87060
> > Tel.: 505-866-5193 Tel. 505-866-6976
> > Fax: 505-866-5197 USA
> >
>
*****************************************************
> > 
> >
>
*****************************************************
> > "This is the hour when democracy must justify
> > itself by capacity for effective decision, or risk
> > destruction or disintegration. Europe is dotted
> > with the ruins of right decisions taken too late."
> > 
> > "America's Responsibility in the Current Crisis"
> > Manifesto of the Christian Realists. May, 1940.
> >
>
*******************************************************
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> > Behalf Of John Jacobus
> > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:07 PM
> > To: howard long
> > Cc: radsafe
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: "-authors do not
> > report-" data refuting
> > theirconclusions!
> > 
> > 
> > So, you say we should look for hormesis? Would
> that
> > not lead bias the analysis?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "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! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search.
> Learn more. 
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"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!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 