[ RadSafe ] Re: Benefit from 0.1 Sv

[howard long]

I'm waiting for John Jacobus to respond to the original question:
How does he explain LESS breast cancer at 1-9 rads than with more radiation or less radiation - other than by a NON linear dose effect - benefit from LDR indicating removal of ALARA?
He is correct in noting that I do not accept authors' conclusions that are inconsistent with their own data.

Nothing can be proven, as philosophy should have taught, including one's own existence.
But I have rarely seen as good evidence for any prevention, as that from Taiwan apt, nuclear shipyard, Canadian fluoroscopy, USA Co lung cancer death rates vs home radon samples, British radiologist longevity, etc, etc. I believe John and many others are like Javier in Les Miserables, unable to accept that they attack a benefit labeled as a harm - low dose radiation.
 
Howard Long   
 
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
I would say the hormesis has not been proven, which is
not to say that I support the idea. I really think
that it is wishful thinking. I will oppose poor
science, which I do think you accept.

By the way, you still have not answered my question
about the 1977 McGregor and Land report which shows an
increase of cancers over expected. No LNT, just real
science. Why do you never refer to this piece of
data?I get the feeling you have never have looked at
the paper.

--- howard long wrote:

> 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 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
> 
=== 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!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs