Re: It's the design, folks, it's the design

["H.Wade Patterson" <hwade@talltown.com>]

Daniel J Strom wrote, in part:
 
> This lack of correlation between measurements is true of Wade
> Patterson's ecological studies, as well.

Dan, they aren't "my studies" at all. Granted, they're "ecological
studies" but they are not mine.

They are independent studies; each by different authors and independent
of each other, all with the same result. Why should all the results be
in the same direction?  

It's almost certain that radiation exposure causes cancer at high doses,
so it's legitimate to look at low dose effects. (In no way is it a
parallel to that silly analogy with Chinese lung cancer and ancient
radon levels around the Mediterranean).

In fact, none of these studies deal with radon. I've removed the 2 that
did, and since you didn't like Jablon et al., I ve taken it out too.

Why should all the results show a negative relation between radiation
exposure and cancer?

By the way, I'd welcome answers to this question from others too.

Below are some references to studies that show an inverse effect;
namely, lesser response with larger dose.

Why is it that all these "ecological" studies show this inverse
relation? It seems unlikely to me that this persistent negative relation
is due to chance.

Could there be a conspiracy? I think not.

So, what's happening?

1. Craig,L.; Seidman,H. Leukemia and lymphoma mortality in relation to
cosmic radiation. Blood 17 : 319, 1961.

2. Frigerio,N.A.; Ekerman,K.F.; Stowe,R.S. The Argonne Radiological
Impact Program (ARIP), Part I. Carcinogenic Hazard from Low-Level,
Low-Rate Radiation; ANL/ES-26 Part I, Environmental and Earth Sciences,
Sept. 1973.

3. Frigerio,N.A.; Stowe,R.S.; Carcinogenic and genetic hazard from
background radiation. IAEA Symposium, Biological and Environmental
Effects of Low Level Radiation, vol. 2, pp 285-289, Vienna, 1976.

4. Luckey, T. D., Physiological benefits from low levels of ionizing
radiation. Health Physics, v43, 6, pp 771-789, (1982).

5. Wei,L.X.; Zha,Y.R.; Tao ,Z.F.; He,W.H.; Chen,D.Q.; Yuan,Y.L.
Epidemiological investigation of radiological effects in high background
radiation areas of Yangjiang, China. Journal of Radiation Research, 31,
1, pp 119-136, 1990.

6. Nambi,K.S.V.; Soman,S.D. Further observations on environmental
radiation and cancer in India. Health Physics, 59, 3, pp 339-344, 1990.

7. Hickey, R. J.; Bowers, E. J.; Spence, D. E.; Zemel, B. S.; Clelland,
A. B.; Clelland, R. C. Low Level Ionizing Radiation And Human Mortality
: Multi-Regional Epidemiological Studies. A Preliminary Report. Health
Phys. 40(5) :625-641; May, 1981

8. Hickey, R. J.; Bowers, E. J.; Clelland, R. C.; . Radiation hormesis,
public health, and public policy: a commentary. Health Phys. 44(3)
:207-219; March, 1983

9. Chen,D.; Wei,L. Chromosome aberration, cancer mortality and hormetic
phenomena among inhabitants in areas of high background radiation in
China. Journal of Radiation Research, 32 Suppl. 2, pp 46-53, 1991.

10. Shihab-Eldin,A.; Shlyakhter,A.; Wilson,R. Is There a Large Risk of
Radiation? A Critical Review of Pessimistic Claims. Environment
International, 18, pp. 117-151, 1992.

11. Latarjet, R. Radiation carcinogenesis and radiation protection.
Cancer J., 5, pp 23-27, 1992.

12. Biological effects of low level exposures : dose-response
relationships. Edward J. Calabrese, editor. Boca Raton : Lewis
Publishers, c1994.

Is it due to chance that all these studies show the same negative
relation between radiation exposure and cancer?

Please excuse the excessive repetition of this question, but it didn't
seem to get through before.

Best wishes to all,
 
Wade

mailto hwade@talltown.com

H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630
ph 541 947-4974