Re: Japanese atomic bomb survivor study

["Dale E. Boyce" <dale@radpro.uchicago.edu>]

It occurs to me to ask some questions of the experts on the Japanese
survivors and other cohorts.  Most of the reports I have seen focus
on cancer death rate as a function of exposure.  Since mortality is
unavoidable in the long run, and cancer and cardiovascular and related
diseases account for most deaths, increasing the percentage dying
of one should tend to reduce the percentage dying of the other.
Has this been examined?  Have the survivors received more and better
health care than the control group?  How would this effect the results?
Would more cancers be found earlier?  Would this or could this skew the
results for cancer incidence as a function of age?  Although treatment
now probably extends life expectancy, how long has this been the case.
That is did cancer treatment of the past tend to be palliative, rather
than geared toward life extension?  Does death rate for one mode alone
mean anything without looking at the total death rate as a function of
age for the cohort and control?

These questions are geared toward high dose, not low dose and the LNT
debate.  They are serious questions that I hope someone can shed some
light on.

Dale
dale@radpro.uchicago.edu