Replies to items from Aug.22

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

	Reply to Loesch on Paul Frame message:
The experiments you refer to are examples of "Adaptive response". There 
are dozens of results of the type you mention and they are well accepted. 
They are reviewed in an Annex to the 1994 UNSCEAR Report.
Other evidence that the simple defense of linear-no threshold offered by 
Paul Frame is far too simple: it is well established that low level 
radiation stimulates the immune response; it changes the timing in the 
cell cycle, extending the time in the cycle available for repair; and the 
time delay between irradiation and development of cancer increases as 
dose decreases so natural death has a better chance of occuring before 
the cancer develops from low level radiation.

	Reply to Wade Patterson on his response to criticisms of my paper:
The problems with ecological studies cited in texts on epidemiology, 
known as the "ecological fallacy", do not apply in testing a linear, no 
threshold theory (references available on request). In fact, the formula 
I use to test the theory is derived from risks to individuals from the 
individual doses they receive by rigorous mathematics. In a linear, no 
threshold theory, distribution of doses among recipients is not 
relative-- that is why person-rem determines the number of deaths.
	
	Reply to Atkinson:
Doses to individuals among the Japanese A-bomb survivors were obviously 
not measured. To a large extent, they did what you said would make that 
an ecological study-- assumed that the dose was a function of their 
distance from the epicenter. They made some correction for shielding of 
individuals from the surroundings that they recalled, but I don't think 
that was a very important correction in most cases.