[ RadSafe ] Re: Benefit from 0.1 Sv

[John Jacobus]

Apparently you are unable or incapable to understand
what is written.  After reading some of your comments,
it is apparently both.  By the way, I find your
inability to cite reference when asking questions a
typical example of your lack of scientific prowse.  

As I said, in the 1977 McGregor and Land report the
difference between the expected cancers is due to the
mathematical extrapolation of the data.  This is
abundently clear when you look as the changes in the
data sets.  It is also clear you do not read what I
have sent you.  You said and actual indicate a degree
in epidemiology.  You may wish to ask for a refund.  

Your braying about the "studies" probably impresses
you, but they do not for many of the professional
scientist who study radiobiology and epidemiology.
When I cite the results of a epideimological study,
McGregor and Land 1977, you dismiss the results that
demonstrate a harmful effect.  Again, you do not know
the difference between data and statistical analysis.
I think that you do not know the basics research or
how to critically evaluate what you read.  But, then,
why be bothered with fact when you have wishful
thinking, or hormesis, to fall back on.  

Note:  I have abreviated the two McGregor and Land
studies.  If anyone would like further information,
let me know.  

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

> 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
> 
=== 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!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail