[ RadSafe ] Re: LNT now NOT "reasonable"

Sun Mar 20 18:26:23 CET 2005

I always offer to provide others information to make
up their own minds.  I would suggest that if you do go
the the Radiation Safety and Health Web site you read
the information critically.  I would also suggest that
people, including Howard, read the NCRP Report 136 to
understand the underpinnings of the LNT. 
http://www.ncrponline.org/rpt136.html  I do not know
how one can make an intelligent decision without
understanding all of the facts.  

Despite what Howard says the LNT is reasonable, not
perfect.  It is a hypothesis.  Research being
undertaken by DOE may further expand our understanding
of such phenomenons as the bystander effect. 
http://lowdose.tricity.wsu.edu/ 
Such work may even provide evidence that hormesis is
not what its proponents suggest. As the McGregor and
Land report of 1977 shows, low does of radiation do
increase cancer.  I believe that this report was
published before there was any LNT/hormesis
controversy.  Therefore, its result are not biased to
support the LNT, even if Howard says it is.  

By the way, I must thank Howard Long for leading to
the paper. Again, if anyone wants a copy, let me know.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> 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.
> > >>
> 
=== 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!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 