[ RadSafe ] LNT now NOT "reasonable"

[howard long]

John has kindly corrected my address for rad-sci, at which there IS ample data that LNT and ALARA are now NOT "reasonable":  http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/index.html


Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
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" 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" 
> To: "howard long" ; "Gerald
> Nicholls" 
> ;
> ; 
> 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 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 
> >> 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