Re: Reqeust for Kerala Control Data

["Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>]

Jim --

I'm more than a little nonplussed by this exhange.  Meaning no offense, I
find that you are highly polarized on the issue, and apparently have
lumped not only Gofman and Sternglass but also BEIR, NCRP, EPA and me too
at the other pole.  Well, at least I'm in the majority if only by numbers. 

Again, no offense, but those you demean as anti's may indeed distort or 
misinterpret data, but they have a right to their beliefs, even if these 
beliefs fly in the face of what you or even the majority perceive to be 
scientific fact.  As I recall, there still exists a Flat Earth Society.  
And, many intelligent and well meaning Americans (including a significant 
number in my community) do not believe in evolution but think that 
creationism should be taught in our public schools.  I do 
not mean to preach, but I do think that tolerance and understanding are 
important to carrying a message to the public.  As for me, while I 
believe that a de minimis level of exposure may well be warranted, the 
jury is still out on low level radiation effects.


Ron Kathren 


On Thu, 26 Oct 1995 JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:

> Ron,
> 
> I responded to your other message but find that the anti's use these kinds of
> misdirection statements with great effect, implying great danger to the
> general public. We all know that. And Gofman, Sternglass, etc do it all the
> time, along with BEIR, NCRP, EPA, etc. I don't think this is "accidental". 
> 
> I'm disappointed that such "fodder" is reinforced in here too. And of course,
> BEIR is not a credible source for disabusing the public of its concerns about
> radiation, linear model or no, which is explicitly fostered by government,
> abusing the public. Gov't wants to spend $-trillion for cleanup (Dr. Goldman,
> Feb Newsletter) and $10s-billions/year for no public benefit  _because_ of
> these (carefully worded) statements. If that's not your intention, that's your 
> effect, at least as promulgated thru the system, and you may want to
> reconsider how you make these statements. 
> 
> Your comment about "retaining scientific objectivity" vs "advocacy" is
> somewhat disingenuous when your statement, as promulgated, is intrinsic and
> explicit to the advocacy for public fear. 
> 
> To leave the "question" of whether the chromosome aberrations at high
> background are "deleterious or not" is equally disingenuous since the high
> dose populations with such aberrations (eg, the UK Windscale fire response and 
> other high-dose workers, among others, as I noted and you undoubtedly know)
> demonstrate no adverse effects, and we can play to the mob that high
> background doses may have deleterious effects. Nice. 
> 
> Ron, I don't mean this to be personal, but to see this as a case of how the
> basic language that we use is the ammunition of the defeat of common sense,
> and the source of that language is NOT an unintended consequence of
> "scientific objectivity", all pretense notwithstanding. As I note in another
> message, we need to start taking our moral obligations for the costs and lies
> to the public seriously. We can spend billions protecting the public from less 
> radioactivity than we get from drilling a water well! Who is responsible? It
> is us. Lets take corrective action; be part of the solution, not part of the
> problem. 
> 
> Regards, Jim
> 
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
>