Re: Reqeust for Kerala Control Data

[rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (ronald kathren)]

Jim --

Sorry I surprised you, but I do not think I in any way misrepresented any
data.  In reference to the Kerala population, BEIR V, p. 384 states: "The
incidence of both Down syndrome and chromosome aberrations has beeen
reported to be increased .  .  ."  citing the paper by Kochupillan (1976) as
authority.  For the Chinese, BEIR V, p. 385, states "The prevalence of Down
syndrome was greater in the high-background region, but this was discounted
because the residents of the control area had a lower prevalence than those
of surrounding counties, who had rates similar to those living in the high
natural background area."

Chromosome aberrations -- clearly a biological effect -- do seem to be
related to radiation exposure.  Whether the effect is deleterious or not is
another question.  Please, let us retain our scientific objectivity and not
get trapped into advocacy or adversarial positions.

Ron Kathren  



>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
>
>