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

[John Jacobus]

I would disagree.  The LNT is a hypothesis that
attempts to show the relationship dose and effect.  If
you read NCRP 136, you might better understand the
basis for it.  

I do agree with you that at low doses and dose rates,
the LNT does not do well. Part of the problem is that
it does not do will at low doses because of the
statistical nature of the data sets. Also, there are
repair mechanisms that do affect cell mutation rates. 
Yet, individual cells in some cases do follow the LNT
to very low doses.  However, other cell lines do not. 
Also, whole organisms may not show the same dose to
effect responses that individual cells do.  The
problem is that biology is not like Newtonian physics.
 

Hormesis may certainly be a factor, but it may not. 
However, when you cherry pick data and use selective
bias, you are not resolving the issues.  

By the way, I try to stay of of the radon and EPA
issues.  I know enough to say that I understand all of
the studies.  Maybe you could enlighten me.

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

> If it fails at low doses as you say below, then it
> is a bankrupt concept. 
> If you concede that, then what are we arguing about?
>  All I put forward is 
> the modest proposition that at very low doses,
> hormesis is about as likely 
> as LNT to be true.  You call it cherry picking when
> Long does it, but it is 
> even worse cherry picking when EPA does it to
> support LNT based public 
> policy that costs us all a huge fortune.
> 
> ----- 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 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Do better than John Snow's
> Work. Medical Ethics?
> 
> 
> > 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"
> 
=== 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/