[ RadSafe ] Do better than John Snow's Work. Medical Ethics?

[John Jacobus]

I am sure what you mean.  We are not supposed to be
skepical of miraculous findings?  Is individual
thought a problem? Please elobrate.  

--- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:

> Boy is that a twisted take on the issue.  The
> skeptics in this case are the 
> folks who doubt the almost religious LNT construct. 
> The notion that the 
> anti-nukes are the skeptics is humorous indeed.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> To: "howard long" <hflong at pacbell.net>; "Gerald
> Nicholls" 
> <Gerald.Nicholls at dep.state.nj.us>;
> <radsafe at radlab.nl>; <rad-sci-1 at wpi.edu>
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Do better than John Snow's
> Work. Medical Ethics?
> 
> 
> >I guess the thing that has always bothered me is
> that
> > there is no control matching between the general
> > population and the irradiated apartment dwellers.
> > Even in this country you see differences in cancer
> > distributions between more and less densely
> populated
> > areas, age, sex, etc.  Is it possible most
> apartment
> > dwellers are under 50, which would bias the data?
> >
> > The numbers seem fast and loose.  Of course, being
> > skeptical is not permitted.  You must accept
> whatever
> > is fed to you.
> >
> > --- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Thank you for this serious response to my tongue
> in
> >> cheek proposal.
> >> It deserves a better answer than I can give, so I
> am
> >> including the rad-sci list in hopes that someone
> >> like Muckerheide will point out the retrospective
> >> studies already done.
> >>
> >> I do fear that lawsuit for imaginary damage is
> the
> >> main obstacle to a properly controlled study.
> >>
> >> Howard Long
> >>
> >> Gerald Nicholls <Gerald.Nicholls at dep.state.nj.us>
> >> wrote:
> >> Howard Long wrote:
> >>
> >> "The Taiwan "Study" (J Am Phys & Surg 9:1,
> pp6-11)
> >> is at least as
> >> impressive as was John Snow's observation of more
> >> disease on one side of
> >> a London street than the other having a different
> >> water supply.This at
> >> least calls for a test, "taking off the pump
> >> handle", exposing another
> >> population to 0.4 Sv over 10 years, to reproduce
> >> very low cancer and
> >> fetal abnormality rates..
> >>
> >> Are ambulance chasers like the TV lawyers
> soliciting
> >> anyone with or
> >> without trouble who ever was near a brake lining
> >> (asbestos), had heart
> >> trouble (aspirin family), etc, ready to block
> this
> >> science?"
> >>
> >> It seems to me that Snow's work on the spread of
> >> cholera in 19th
> >> century London is far more scientifically
> impressive
> >> than the Taiwan
> >> study. Snow proposed that cholera was transmitted
> by
> >> contaminated water
> >> in 1849 (in conflict with the generally then held
> >> idea of inhalation of
> >> vapors) and was able to prove his theory in 1854
> >> during a particularly
> >> tragic outbreak of the disease. The authors of
> the
> >> Taiwan study have
> >> documented their observations and pointed out the
> >> need for further
> >> study, but not proved their case. One of
> >> recommendations is to design
> >> future experiments so that hormetic effects can
> be
> >> studied.
> >>
> >> You suggest a study in which you would give a
> >> population 0.4 Sv over 10
> >> years. If the population exposed was 10,000, so
> as
> >> to achieve the 4,000
> >> person Sv population dose estimated in the Taiwan
> >> study, and you had
> >> 10,000 matched controls, the researchers would
> have
> >> to track the health
> >> and radiation doses to 20,000 people over 10
> years,
> >> a difficult and
> >> expensive proposition. And, you don't need to
> >> envision ambulance
> >> chasers and the like seeking to block this
> >> "science," you just have to
> >> look as far as you nearest review board and its
> >> resident medical
> >> ethicists.
> >>
> >> Doing the study retrospectively using available
> >> health and demographic
> >> data might be possible. It would also avoid the
> >> major ethical pitfalls,
> >> probably cost less and the results would likely
> be
> >> available in less
> >> than 10 years.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gerald P. Nicholls
> >> NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection
> >> 609-633-7964
> >> gerald.nicholl at dep.state.nj.us
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > "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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"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/