Reqeust for Kerala Control Data

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

AH says,

> The theory is: "less than 5 rem has no effect".
> 
> Either:
>  1. the theory is disproved by Kerala data, or
>  2. the theory is correct and the Kerala data have a non-radiation cause.

That's not the point of the message. Nor is the statement scientifically or
logically valid.  

Ron referred to the Kerala data as indicating excess Downs syndrome as a
potential radiation-related effect. (I appreciate that Ron was reporting info
(mis-info) that has been widely reported without looking at the original.) 

The referenced study does not support the proposed conclusion. Since the 0
effects in the control population are the abnormal result for the region, how
could 2. be a valid consideration? Nor is 1. proposed or possible (though you
could look at the original study for all the health effects to see if the size 
and distribution 

Without the Downs syndrome misrepresented (by CAN, and CCRI, and CARS, and
other anti's, and now Ron Kathren to my surprize) as a radiation-related
effect, the study shows that for many endpoints there are NO adverse health
effects in the high background Kerala population. It's a small population and
the results are not statistically lower than normal as I recall, and I don't
recall whether the results are statistically lower than linear with this small 
population. You could see the reference 

> JM argues:
> 
> JM> "Nobel Laureate Dr. Rosalyn Yalow reports . . .
>   > . . . The lack of Down's syndrome in the particular town used as a
>   > control population is a statistical small-number aberration."
> 
> I am not convinced by a Nobel judgement.  I will be convinced if a 

Sorry Dr. Yalow doesn't meet your standards of intelligence or integrity
(better CANs interpretation of the data?)  Nor does the original reference she 
refers to I presume. Personally, I'll give her work somewhat more weight than
this. 

> non-radiation difference between Kerala and control can be shown to 
> have caused the 12 to 0 cases.  Does such data exist?  Is there a
> non-radiation difference to explain the Kerala:control difference in 
> Down Syndrome?

> Or, is this to be left unresolved?

Nothing's "unresolved".  In the original post which you seem to have missed in 
this selective extract, 12 is shown to be normal for India,  0 is abnormal.
What would "non-radiation difference" would "explain" the difference? Why
would it make any substantive difference to the scientific evidence? 

> regards,
> 
> Andrew Hodgdon
> hodgdon@yankee.com

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com