Effects of Radiation, the Truth Behind the Myths
The mis-application of the LNT: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/15/ct-hospital-scanners-radiation-doses-cancer-risk-comare These scary messages will make some people refuse CT scans. How do we stop such messages?
Send your comments to the group via the SARI google-groups email. These comments are very infrequently checked.
what role does the bystander effect lnt model?
Here’s colleague Noy’s reply:
Rithidech, Kanokporn Kanokporn.Rithidech@stonybrookmedicine.edu via googlegroups.com
Oct 16 (1 day ago)
Protective bystander effects can happen. Hence, protective bystander effects (in contrast to deleterious bystander effects) would be against the LNT model.
Kanokporn Noy Rithidech, Ph.D.
Professor of Research
Department of Pathology
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-8691
Tel: (631) 444-3446
Fax: (631) 444-3424
by the way, this other study supports or contradicts the LNT model ?? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25076115 .I would like to know your answer, thanks
who is funding this research and website?
It’s all volunteer (which explains it’s amataeurish look). It’s hard to maintain your intellectual integrity when you’re beholden to funding sources. Members are professionals that do this on the side, apart from their “day jobs”. Some of their experience/credentials are impressive. They all just want “accurate radiation information” to help guide the misguided fear mongering that seems to surround all things “radiation.
who is funding this research and website?
No one. It’s entire voluntary. Membership has nothing to do with member’s employers. We need more funding to do more, but funding generally makes our efforts potentially “tainted” by conflict of interest. We’re feeling our way through, bu growing slowly. Interested in joining us?
Mark have you seen this recent (four month-old) multi-national report that supports the LNT hypothesis? http://tinyurl.com/ovfup66
There are two outliers but the lower ones do fit the LNT theory. I encountered someone using this study as evidence that LNT is scientifically proven. If you’ve studied this report and responses but do the three responses form a consensus that the study is not proof of LNT validity?
Here is a concise reply from a colleague:
This is the same group and the same set of 308,297 subjects covered in the paper by Leuraud et al. (see the list of authors, just rearranged but all 13 are the same). Greg, Jeff S, and I have submitted a paper to Biological Theory critiquing these studies, among all others of similar type, that will be published in a few months – already reviewed, with no calls for revision but reviews are to be edited by the reviewers for publication alongside our paper with our rebuttals to their reviews.
In it we show that the IARC studies done by these authors, and almost certainly all other authors who arrive at the same conclusion (which is a very large group of studies over the years), make one gigantic conceptual error and several secondary, but also major, conceptual errors – first, they consider the cancer rate at the lowest cumulative dose in their study (the occupational cumulative dose) to be the baseline cancer rate, rather than taking as the baseline that cancer rate which would obtain at zero cumulative dose (an impossible datum to obtain because everyone is exposed to natural background and medical radiation as well as occupational).
So because they cannot obtain the true baseline cancer rate at actual zero total cumulative dose they merely assume that if they could obtain data at lower and lower cumulative doses below the lowest occupational exposure the cancer rates would continue to fall all the way down to zero total cumulative dose. In other words, in effect and without realizing it, they assume a priori that the relationship is linear even in the lowest ranges that they cannot observe. To put it another way, they assume LNT and then claim that their data are consistent with LNT, when it is only consistent with linearity from their lowest occupational dose upward and there are no data below that for them to know one way or the other whether it would be linear at still lower dose ranges. This is an award-winning case of self-deceptive circular reasoning – assume that which is to be proven and mistake the assumption for the proof.
That’s their one gigantic conceptual error, but the other conceptual errors are not minor. The second major error is their assumption that cumulative doses over years of exposure to very low dose rates is a meaningful figure. Over ¾ of their more than 300,000 subjects were exposed to cumulative occupational doses on the job of less than 10 mGy over the decades on the job, and the mean dose rate for all was 1.1 mGy/year (!), which is roughly the same as the lowest natural background dose rate in the US, around the gulf coast. At dose rates that low, we show that any assumption that cumulative doses are meaningful is like concluding that a chef who cuts her finger many times over the course of a decade, and loses a total of 5 liters of blood, will die of exsanguination if you add up the total blood loss over that decade without accounting for healing and blood replacement from the marrow (i.e., repair). Of course, if she were to lose that same 5 liters of blood in 10 minutes, she would indeed die, so failure to take into account the rate of blood loss can also be fatal to the accuracy of the conclusion.
Third, the IARC authors (all 13 of them, of whom lead authors Richardson and Leuraud seem to be statisticians) are perfectly content to include combinations of data that fail to reach statistical significance as though they did, remarking merely that the data were “highly imprecise” – a statement that is sufficiently misleading to deserve the Nobel Prize for Understatement.
And finally, as has also been pointed out by others, the vague appearance of increasing cancer rates (albeit statistically non-significantly) at higher and higher cumulative occupational doses is likely due to confounding by the ages of their subjects, which is somewhat correlated with cumulative exposure. They claim to have controlled for age, but they don’t provide their data or analysis for anyone to check that.
Bottom line: Not true.
Also visit the SARI Facebook page:
Do you all have a rebuttal for:
Anders P. Møller, Timothy A. Mousseau. The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms. Biological Reviews, 2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x
There have been a number of studies that purport to show a correlation between proximity to a nuclear plant and increased cancers. But others show a correlation between where a plant is PLANNED but not built too.
Has anybody conducted a study to see whether FEAR of a nuclear plant is correlated with increased cancer?
Is it possible that a confounding factor in all the earlier studies is the degree of anti-NuPow protesting and NOT the nuclear emissions?
Good questions! I doubt it, though.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Posted on Mar 21, 2017
Posted on Mar 11, 2017
Posted on Mar 7, 2017
Posted on Mar 5, 2017
Posted on Mar 1, 2017
Posted on Jan 17, 2014
Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information S.A.R.I.