Re: Exchanges with Lubin and with Field et al in HEALTH PHYSICS

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

John, Bernie, Klaus, Group,


John Cameron wrote:
> 
> Colleagues, I feel it is inappropriate for the HPJ editor to cut off the
> discussion of an important issue in radiation protection.  If he decides to
> cut off the discussion  he is obligated to inform the readers that he
> refused to accept a response from Bernie.  I thought (erroneously) that
> perhaps Bernie did not choose to reply. I am sure many other readers will
> conclude that the other side "won the debate".  Bernie should put a note on
> radsafe ASAP explaining that he was not permitted to reply by the editor.
> Each of us can write to members of the editorial board and to the chair of
> the HPS publications committee expressing our thoughts on such an
> arbitrary termination of discussion. I think Bernie should write the chair
> of the  HPS publications committee explaining the situation and ask if
> there is an appeal process.  In the  meantime, it is appropriate for Bernie
> to give his response on radsafe. I believe the editor of HPS is due to
> change next year.
>       I don't know if the editor of the Journal being a member of NCRP is
> a contributing factor in his decision.  Certainly Bernie's data must be a
> thorn in the side of the NCRP and ICRP as they destroy their main theme
> of LNT.  Best wishes, John
> 
> John R. Cameron, Professor Emeritus UW-Madison
> 2571 Porter Rd. PO Box 405, Lone Rock, WI 53556-0405
> Phone: 608/583-2160 Fax: 608/583-2269
> e-mail: jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu
> 
> NOTE: after October 18, 1998 mail and phones change to:
> 2678 SW 14th Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608-2050
> Phone: 352/371-9865; Fax 352/371-9866
> same e-mail all year.


Recall also that HPJ refused to publish the strong confirming results of
the very high variations in the radon data in East Germany/Saxony by
Werner Schuttmann and Klaus Becker, of women who smoked negligibly, with
completely fatuous non-scientific "peer-review" statements by 2
clearly-biased reviewers ('shouldn't pub ecological studies'). These
were distributed on radsafe then, and obtained numerous comments that
the HPS was culpable in suppressing data, and Holub wanted the review
reconsidered, urging that the paper be resubmitted. (Klaus said he never
heard from him.)

After substantial rewrite to further document the confirming science and
analysis, a recent note from Klaus said they had given up on continuing
to work on the paper, and had asked to submit the data as a letter. :-(  

I've asked Klaus for additional background about HPJ communications, and
recommend they not give up without appeal. The HPS has a new President.
Note that the past President is LNT-committed, coming from the Harvard
School of Public Health Summer School program that trains the many new
gov't minions that, as an "Admiral" of the Public Health Service
responded when he was told that: "The LNT is a conservative upper bound
for a dose-response that can include zero. (And there's some evidence
that it could be negative.)", he interrupted to say "I can't believe
that. I was taught at the HSPH that the science shows that the
dose-response is positive down to zero dose." 


These publication experiences should be documented, along with the many
others that are being identified, to give to the GAO for its review of
the validity of the scientific assessment of the LNT for radiation
protection purposes that is being undertaken at Senator Domenici's request!

If you know about specific experiences, either first-hand or from others
who have first-hand knowledge, you should communicate with the GAO
directly, or get in touch with an RSH member that you know. We will
handle information in confidence - call rather than email if you prefer.
The RSH Directors are listed at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/About/board_directors.html

(Forgive the "interim status of the site" we unexpectedly lost our
student webmaster this spring, and will get back on this in the next
couple of months :-)

We don't have contact information for the Directors on the site, but you
know many from the radsafe list. I can get contact info for you for most
if you need it. You can call daytime at 508-820-2039, or
evenings/weekends at 781-449-2214 (office) or 781-444-8319 (home) - fax
781-449-6464 if you have papers you want to forward.


We are also documenting data that reflect the "Liburdy standard" of
scientific fraud by, as Liburdy said: "The data is there. We just
disagree about how it should be presented. I have have several
independent sources who agree with me." This applies in spades to many
LNT papers, e.g., recall Otto Raabe's description of Mays and Lloyd
making Robley Evans' radium dial painter data into a straight line:


At 01:47 PM 4/19/99 -0500, Mike McNaughton wrote:

> Caution: the radium-dial painter data are consistent with the 
> linear model. The data look inconsistent because they are drawn on 
> a logarithmic graph. On a this graph, the linear model transforms 
> to an exponential ,and it is possible to draw a reasonable 
> "exponential" fit through these data.
>
April 21, 1999
Davis, CA

Actually, in the November 1974 issue of the Health Physics Journal
Robley Evans showed definitively that NO linear model of 
radiation-induced bone cancer is consistent with the U.S. data on 
radium in people (Robley D. Evans, "Radium in Man", HEALTH PHYSICS 
27:497-510, 1974). 

[See: http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-2/4/1/1241list.html ]

He used linear (not logarithmic) plots and rigorous mathematical 
tests of several hypothetical linear models (Figures 4 and 5 in his 
paper). His analysis demonstrated that it is highly unlikely that 
these data can be explained by any linear dose-response model and 
that all of the linear dose-response models were "strongly rejected 
by the chi-square test for goodness of fit."

By grouping the Evans data into six non-uniform dose groups selected 
so that only one dose group included no bone cancer cases (one with 
average skeletal alpha doses from zero to about 500 rad or 10,000 
rem) and so that the next highest dose group included a few cases of 
bone cancer (cases were only observed for average skeletal alpha 
radiation doses that exceeded 1,000 rad or 20,000 rem), Chuck Mays 
and Ray Lloyd created the appealing, but misleading, linear plot 
shown on page 198 of BEIR IV. In their plot the "threshold" region, 
which is below 1,000 rad, is obscured near the origin since the 
abscissa is extended to 16,000 rad and only one dose group was
assigned to this region. Their plot proves nothing about linearity.
Evans's analysis shows that no linear model fits these data.

Otto

             *****************************************************
             Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
             Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH)
                (Street address: Building 3792, Old Davis Road)
             University of California, Davis, CA 95616
             Phone: 530-752-7754  FAX: 530-758-6140
             E-mail ograabe@ucdavis.edu
             *****************************************************


Clearly Mays and Lloyd seem to meet the "Liburdy standard" of
misleading presentation of data. But what is the culpability
of the BEIR IV Committee in relying this obviously skewed 
presentation of the data while failing to honestly present the 
actual data/analysis of Evans and many others? 

Does BEIR IV also reach the "Liburdy standard" of fraud in 
misrepresenting the data?

 
Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
Radiation, Science, and Health
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html