[ RadSafe ] Re: Benefit from 0.1 Sv

Tue Mar 15 18:21:02 CET 2005

Good to hear you do not fight hormesis!

Note that you refer again to the LNT assumption "0 - 9 rad" which does not recognize LESS breast cancer at 1 - 9 rad than at 0 - 1 rad and thus overlooks the hormesis.

Again, how do you account for 34 cases with 1 - 0.9 rad exposure where 42.3 cases expected from comparable population and fitting the expected for higher doses (>50rad) where there was more breast cancer than comparable population, using the same criteria?

Only chance (unlikely) and BENEFIT from 1 -9 rad explain it, since neither the number of cases or the expected number were extrapolated, (as you suggest).

Remove ALARA!  (for clean-up criteria, for compensation and for flight exposure, for sunshine, etc)
Howard Long   

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
I do not fight the idea of hormesis per se, but the
tactics used by some proponents, including you. 
Choosing data to support your position does a
disservice to true researchers.

Several of the studies you cite have been reviewed by
experienced epidemiologists and found lacking. 
However, I am sure that they lack you expertise as you
can find a single line or tidbit of data that supports
your "findings." 

As a typical example you cite the one table in the
1979 McGregor and Land report of 34 observed and 42.3
expected, which is extrapolated data. Yet, in the
1977 report, there is not only no beneficial effect. 
Based on the epidemiological studies of the
populations, 105 cancers were observed and only 96
were expected in 0-9 rad subpopulation. A true
hermetic effect? What is wrong here, since you seem
to have such insight?

A certainly await your explanation. Of course, I am
sure you will provide a detailed analysis.

--- howard long wrote:

> Yes, and it did not change the fact on which you
> refuse to comment.
> 
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> 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 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 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 hermetic 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.
> > >
> >
>
*******************************************************
> > > 
> 
=== message truncated ===

+++++++++++++++++++
"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 - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail