Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

11 Comments

    1. @David B. Benson

      We’re working hard to make sure they cannot ignore the comment and the science that supports it. Any help you can provide would be most appreciated.

        1. @David B. Benson

          If nothing else, you could write letters to the editor for your local newspapers.

          You can also write to your congressman and senator, on tightly specific issues, giving them guidance on how they can best represent your interests.

  1. Can someone more clearly explain how Ozasa et. al. 2012 over estimated the Excess Relative Risk of the RERF solid cancers data? The paragraph in question is at the top of page 3, and in reference to figures 4 and 5. I feel this is an extremely critical point that needs to be put in layman’s terms. Thank you.

    1. I will try to give a simpler explanation. Excess relative risk (ERR) of cancer is given by the formula ERR=(R-B)/B or (R/B-1) where R is the cancer rate in the irradiated population group, and B is the baseline cancer rate, i.e. cancer rate in the population group that did not have the radiation exposure. Ozasa et al. did not have a baseline population group with no radiation exposure. Therefore they used the population group that had the lowest radiation doses as the baseline group. (This is an approximate statement but it will do for this explanation). We know that low radiation doses have resulted in reducing cancer risk from other studies (e.g. see Figure 3 where reduction of cancer rates by 20-40% is observed). Therefore, the baseline cancer rate they used would be lower than they should be by (e.g.) 20%. Since B is in the denominator of the ERR=R/B-1 formula, ERR values would be higher than it should be. That is, they overestimated the cancer rates. When you correct for this error in the baseline cancer rate, the ERRs at low doses go to negative values as seen in Figure 5).
      Hope this explanation makes it clearer. If not please let me know. I will try to explain in another way.

  2. Rod
    I compliment you on this excellent approach. It is totally valid for you to advocate that the EPA remove regulations that do not protect anyone, and especially those that harm them.
    Ted Rockwell said years ago that harmless sources of radiation should not be regulated.
    The ICRP has been saying that it is essential to protect people who are sensitive to radiation. In my recent analysis of 2 dog studies, I provided evidence that short-lived individuals are more sensitive to radiation than average ones, and that they benefit more from low-level radiation than average individuals do. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347275/
    It is important to mention this fact, when people challenge our position that the EPA discard its radiation protection regulations.
    See also the comments that Cuttler and Hannum input to the EPA https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-30021
    Regards

  3. Interesting timing.

    ( phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-potential-disaster.html )

    Frank von Hippel isn’t my favorite author, but isn’t Science a peer-reviewed reputable publication?

  4. Overthrowing false LNT theories of mutation & radio carcinogenesis is probably the most important scientific work being done today.

    If public exposure limits were to be liberalized to the still low 100mSv/yr, fears of any NPP accidents could be eliminated. Costs involved in the design, licensing, and construction of NPPs could easily be cut in half.

    Later as further research confirms hormesis to the satisfaction of medical establishment, Cs137 & other byproducts of the fuel cycle could be distributed to clinics, schools, & workplaces to dramatically improve health.

Comments are closed.