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

[John Jacobus]

By miraculous I mean that the proponents suddenly find
pieces of data that show low doses of radiation cause
few cancers, etc. than expected.  Surprisingly, those
who did the studies and the analyses, and know what
the foundation of the data, did not find these numbers
as being surprising or even significant.

If you look for miracles, you will find them. If you
feel that I am sarcastic, I apologize.  However, my
comment about data diving and cherry picking still
stand.  I would encourage you to consider some of
these findings of hormesis and see for yourself if
they are not suspect.  All of the findings you refer
to may not be relevant.  If truth is based on the
number of studies and not their validity, science will
suffer.

--- "AnaLog Services, Inc." <AnaLog at logwell.com>
wrote:

> I am sure what I mean also.
> 
> What is miraculous about hormesis?  It may not be a
> profound effect, but to 
> even characterize the notion it might be at play as
> "miraculous" says it all 
> about your bias in this matter.  I have no stake in
> hormesis, but I would 
> not sarcastically call the notion "miraculous" with
> all the studies out 
> there.
> 
> ----- 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 10:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Do better than John Snow's
> Work. Medical Ethics?
> 
> 
> >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
> 
=== 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! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/