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

[John Jacobus]

Maybe I am not being clear.  The LNT is a model, which
can be changed.  I feel that it does fail at low doses
and dose rates.

However, the proponents of hormesis what to have it
their way.  Hormesis is good.  However, not all of the
data supports that conjecture.  If they jump and down,
and yell about bias and "hidden" agendas by the
radiation safety community, they expect to win.  This
is what I oppose.

You say you do not believe in hormesis or the LNT, if
would encourage you to keep and open mind and read
both sides for the arguements.  It took me a while to
get where I am, and I am still learning.

By the way, the fact the Earth is round was known
since the times of the ancient Greeks.  Why would
anyone support such a silly notion.

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

> 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
> 
=== 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!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs