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

Syd H. Levine syd.levine at mindspring.com
Sat Mar 19 19:04:26 CET 2005 

The flat worlders need you to defend their position.  Maybe hormesis is a 
load of crap with respect to ionizing radiation, but to defend LNT at this 
late date seems peculiar indeed.

Syd H. Levine
AnaLog Services, Inc.
Phone:  270-276-5671
Telefax:  270-276-5588
E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
URL:  www.logwell.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com>; "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: Saturday, March 19, 2005 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Do better than John Snow's Work. Medical Ethics?


>I will conceed that the LNT is a hypothesis that
> attempts to fit known data to some mathematic model.
> Does it work in all cases?  Within the limits of the
> data, it is probably reasonable.
>
> As for the number of cases that support hormesis, what
> do you mean?  Actual data like the McGregor and Land
> study of 1977 that shows no hormetic effect?
> Ancedotal stories or cherry picking of data?  Bits and
> pieces of data from other work, like taking one line
> of from the McGregor and Land paper of 1979, does not
> really constitute a study. Consider my arguement that
> the McGregor and Land article of 1979 showed a
> difference between observed cancers and expected based
> on the LNT.  Again, the LNT provides an a mathematical
> estimate based on large populations.  After all cancer
> is a stochastic event, of estimates of cancer based on
> any model will be estimates.  One of the things I like
> to see are error bars of levels of confidence in the
> data.  They often speak volumes about the work.
>
> The statement that the estimated risk as an absolute
> shows a lack of understanding of basic science and
> epidemiology.  Howard Long claims to have studied
> epidemiology, but does bring any of that knowledge to
> the argument.  Rather, there is this blind faith in
> what others say.  I certainly do not have any divine
> insight, but I am willing to look at the data and the
> agruments for and against.  I would expect that others
> would try to make a similar effort, but I am probably
> deluding myself.  However, I am willing to give others
> what I have so they can ponder the information.  I do
> not dislike Dr. Long, just his inability to understand
> what he cites.  Maybe he is the one who has blind
> faith.
>
> I am please to hear that you are puzzled.  Maybe it
> will lead to looking at the data and asking questions.
> Again, if you would like copies of any of the papers
> I mention, let me know.
>
> --- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> John:
>>
>> Would you concede that there is sufficient evidence
>> to question the validity
>> of LNT given the number of studies that seem to
>> support hormesis (even if
>> the science is not sterling)?  Or do you simply
>> believe LNT is clearly
>> correct based on some insight I seem to lack?  I am
>> puzzled by your take on
>> this matter and what seems to be a certain
>> stubbornness (and dislike for Dr.
>> Long).
>>
>> Syd H. Levine
>> AnaLog Services, Inc.
>> Phone:  270-276-5671
>> Telefax:  270-276-5588
>> E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
>> URL:  www.logwell.com
>>
>> ----- 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
>>
> === 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
>

More information about the radsafe mailing list