==================================
A
< means "is less than." > means "is greater than."
ABCC = Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission. 4-1
A-Bomb Study: see ABS.
A-bomb survivors*, 5-3
ABS = A-Bomb Study. Chapters 4 T 17, 26 T 31.
Average gamma ray energy, 32-3
Dosimetry improvements welcome 1-2; 5-3,8; 25-1
Excess cancer proven below 20 rems, 13-4,5,7;
25-8; 27-Pt 1
First crisis for new dosimetry, 25-9,10; 30-1
Follow-up 1950-1982 is the KEY one, 6-1
Follow-up beyond 1982 not avail'b for CC-DD, 6-2
Follow-up periods listed, Ta17-A,B
History of its handling, 5-ALL
Inherent scientific virtues, 4-1,2; 12-5;
14-6,8; 23-9
Key study in UNSCEAR-88 and BEIR-5, 25-4,5
Second half to be crucial, 5-8; 17-9
Similar results in T65 & DS86, 14-9
See: Cancer-Yield. Dose-Groups. Dose-response.
Absolute risk model, invalidated by ABS, 17-3,4
Accelerated vs. extra cancers, 12-3; 14-5; 18-9
"Achilles Heel" = vulnerable spot. 18-3
Activation (neutron) products = radionuclides
created by neutron-capture (not by fission) --
the "neutron-in, gamma-out" reaction.
Activation products, 5-7
Active fraction of cells in modified LQ equation,
23-5,6; Ta23-A; Fig23-A
Acute dose = a radiation dose received by tissue in
a very short time.
Acute rad'n sickness, death before 1950, 11-2
Age-bands, range provided, Ta4-B; Ta11-A; Ta26-E
Age-corrections reduce rad'n risk, 11-3; 13-3
Age-sensitivity, 3-1; 4-2; 11-2; 13-6,7;
15-3,8; 16-2,3,4; 17-4; 21-7,18; 36-3,20
Effect on Lifetime Fatal Ca-Yield, 16-2,4; 25-6
Aggregate injury vs. indiv. risk, 24-13,14,17,20;
25-14,16
Airplane crashes (Chernobyl perspective), 24-15
Alexander 1988a, 3-2; 24-17,18; 34-1
Alexander 1988b, 3-2; 24-17,18,19; 34-1
Alexander on threshold, 3-2; 24-19; 34-1
Alive in 1982, 4-1 & Ta4-A, 12-5; 13-6; 28-ALL
Alpha rad'n = large charged particle (two protons +
two neutrons) emitted by certain radionuclides.
"Anchor" of T65DR database, 6-1
Anderson 1988, 35-14
Ankylosing spondylitis = rheumatoid arthritis of
the spine.
Ankylosing Spondylitis Study, 17-Parts 3 + 4
Retroactive dose-changes, 17-7
Anspaugh 1988(Doe88), 1-4; 24-2,6,7,8,9,11,13,14,
Ta24-A; 25-13,16; 34-2
Architecture of a study (as part of input), 6-1,2
"Asking too much from a database," 12-2
Aspirin analogy (threshold, hormesis), 34-8; 35-2
Associated Press 1989, 24-2
ATB = at time of bombing (August, 1945).
Atomic number = number of protons in atom's nucleus.
-
"Man's most valuable trait is a judicious
sense of what not to believe." -- Euripides
B
"Background" dose harmful, 21-13 T 16; 25-15; 34-8
"Ball-park" estimate = loose estimate.
Baral 1977, 21-18
Barendsen 1985, 20-7
Baum 1973, 22-2
Baverstock 1981, 18-9,10; 21-7; 35-16
Baverstock 1983 and 1987, 21-7
Baverstock 1989, 19-6
Beebe 1970, 4-1
Beebe 1971, 4-1; 5-3,4; 11-1
Beebe 1977, 4-1
Beebe 1978, 4-1; 5-4; 8-5; 9-1; Ta9-B; 22-3
BEIR = Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
BEIR-1 1972, ankylosing Spondylitics, 17-7
BEIR-1 1972, linear dose-response, 22-9
BEIR-3 1980 Report: 1-1; 8-5,8; Ta9-A; 11-3,4;
13-6; 14-6,7; 21-1,14,19; 22-2,3,4,9,12;
23-5; 25-6,13; 34-2,6
Cancer-Yield, 24-6; 25-6
"Compromise Group," 37-1
Dose-response, internal fight, 22-4,9; 37-1
No acute estimates below 10 rems, 14-7; 34-2,7
"No suggestion of upward curvature," 22-3
On Denver-Type studies, 21-14; 24-16
On leukemia dose-response, 22-3,9
On threshold, 34-2
Permitted no negative Q-term, 22-3,4,9
Used wrong curve for solid ca, 14-7; 22-9; 23-5
BEIR-4 1988 (radon report), 34-2
BEIR-5 1990 Report, Foreword-1,2; 1-2; 25-ALL
Cancer-Yield, 25-6,12
No dual-dosimtry, 25-2,3
No track-analysis, 25-14
On shape of dose-response, 25-9,12,13
On repair, 25-14
On threshold, safe dose, 25-14
Sponsorship of, 1-1
Below Regulatory Concern, 1-5; 3-4; 23-15; 24-19; 25-16
Bender 1982 and 1984, 18-5
Benefits (alleged): see Hormesis.
Benefit-risk judgments, 24-19 past; 25-16 future
Beral 1985 and 1987, 21-11
Berry 1987, 22-9
"Best available evidence is best AVAILABLE," 16-2
"Best estimate" = "central value"*, Foreword-2;
Table 13-B, Note 5
Best fit equation, 14-1,2,8,9; 29-ALL
Beta particles, as high-speed electrons, 19-2
Beyond 1982 (ABS data for CC-DD analysis), Fore-1;
6-2; 13-7; 14-6; 16-5; 23-9; 25-7,9; 30-1
Bhopal accident (Chernobyl perspective), 24-14,15
Bias in research and analysis:
Conflict-of-interest, 2-1
Conscious and unconscious, 5-1
Fraudulent work: see Fraudulent research.
Generic hazard in dose re-examination, 21-9
If I were to ignore supra-linearity, 15-1
If I were to ignore weight of evidence
against any threshold 18-7, or
for lifelong duration of radiation effect 17-9
If I were to "prefer" Cancer Diff. Method, 16-4
In ABS, no evidence of bias yet, 5-8
Objectivity yielding to bias, 21-19
Potential not addressed in Zu86, 24-16
Billion people vs. 91,231 people, 14-4; 15-7
Biochemical milieu, 23-5,8,9
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation = BEIR.
Blinding not done or not possible, in DS86, 5-4,5
"Blind-spots" about LQ hypothesis, 23-5
Body transmission-factors, higher for DS86,
8-3; Ta9-A; Ta10-E Note 3
Boice 1977, 21-3; 22-3
Boice 1978, 21-1,3,4
Boice 1979, 22-3; 34-6
Boice 1981, 21-13
Boice 1985, 17-6
Bond 1978, 13-4
Bond 1984, 18-5
Bone-cancer (Un86), 22-11
"Bounciness" of data by 4-year intervals, 17-3,4
Boveri 1914 & 1929, 18-2
Box, in the*, 12-3. Box = closable container.
Bq = Becquerel. One Bq = 1 radioactive
disintegration per second. One Bq per 27 pCi.
Brackenbush 1988, 18-3,5; 20-3,7; 33-9
Breast-cancer, radiation-induced:
Beir80, 22-9
Beir90, 25-5,6
Davis87, 21-12,13
Evans86, 22-10,11
Generalizing from, 21-20; 22-3,6
Go81, 23-5
Gofman & Tamplin 1970, vii
Howe84, 21-4; 22-14,15
Hrubec89, 21-12
In ABS, 8-6; 22-3; 23-5
MacKenzie65, vii
Miller89, 22-14,15
Ncrp80, 22-3; 23-5
Nih85, 22-5
Nrc85 and Nrc89, 22-10
Prediction about young ATB, in Go81, 17-6
Waka83, 22-5
Wanebo68, vii
Breast doses: 20-fold change w. beam direction, 21-3
"Bright prospects" from repair, 18-3
Brodsky 1978, 33-1
Burden of proof (of hazard), 25-16; 34-7
Burns 1981, 18-5
-
"To believe with certainty, we must begin
with doubting." -- Stanilaus, King of Poland
C
Ca = cancer.
Calculated = estimated = predicted rates, 29-1 T 4
"Canary" (about questionable practices), Foreword-1
"Cancer-factory," 12-5
Cancer, the disease:
All types radiation-inducible, 21-19
Breast-cancer: see Breast-cancer entry.
Genetic and unicellular origin, 18-2,3,15
Prevention, 1-5; 3-1,2; 18-1,18; 24-19;
25-17; 35-21; 36-22
Rate per 10,000, calc'n, Table 13-A, Note 1
Sites (organs): see Site-specific analyses.
Spontaneous ca-mortality USA, 22% in 1986, 21-14
Cancer-Yield*, 12-1,3,4
By best-fit, alike in T65 & DS86, 14-9
Conversion to % increase in spont, 16-2; 24-4
Difference: linear vs. concave-upward, 24-9
Difference: linear vs. supra-L, 25-13, [15-6,7]
Lifetime is nec'y predicted, 12-3,4,5
Lifetime value and age-handling, 16-5; 25-3
Lifetime vs. minimum*, 12-3,4
Utility despite inexactitude, 16-4
Cancer-Yield, various estimates:
Beir80, 24-6
Beir90, 25-6,12
Gofman, list of all, Table 24-B
Canc Diff Method, Ta13-B, Tables 14-A,B,C
Canc-Rate Ratio Method, 16-3; Tables 16-A,B,C
Nrc85, 24-7
Preston & Pierce, 22-13; Ta24-B
Shimizu 1988, 24-10,11; Ta24-B
UNSCEAR 1977 (value of 1.0), exact quote, 22-7,8
Popular for Chernobyl analyses, 24-9
Called "official," 24-9,15
UNSCEAR 1988, 25-4, 11
Causality and confounding variables, 12-4,5;
21-5,6,8,9,18; Denver-Type studies 21-14 T 17
Causality, supported by dose-response trend, 4-1:
21-8; 22-21
Causality, in-utero studies, 21-5,6,7,8,9
CC-DD = Constant-cohort, dual-dosimetry.
Cell, cuboidal model, 20-4; 33-5
Cell-inactivation term*, 23-5
Discussion, 23-1,5,6; 23-Pt 7
Cell-killing, 22-2; 23-1,5,6; 25-5,8,9
Cell-nucleus, diameter, 20-3,4; 33-7 T 10
Cell-sterilization, 22-2,8; 23-5,6
Cell studies with mitotic stimulants, 35-10,15
Cell transformation studies & dose-rate, 23-8,9
Central estimate = "Best estimate," Ta27-B, Note 4
Cesium-134 (Chernobyl fallout), 36-ALL
Cesium-137, 3-2; 8-9; 20-2; 24-4; 36-ALL
From weapons-testing, 36-8,17,28
Losing 1 part per 1000, impact, 25-17
cGy or centi-gray*, 20-1
Centi-gray, relatng to centi-sievert, Index-12
"Cherished hypothesis" vs. data, 23-1
Chernobyl accident (26 April 1986), Chapters 24, 36.
Dose-range of interest, 14-6,7; 24-12; 36-19
Equivalents by slow non-explosive release, 25-17
Excluding doses beyond 50 years, 24-6,8
Excluding low doses from estimates, 24-18,19,20
Global & stellar perspective, 24-13,14; 25-16
Small indiv. vs. huge collective dose,
24-3,11,13,17
UNSCEAR-88 comment, 25-16
"Violent disassembly" euphemism (DOE), 24-7
Chernobyl-induced cancers, estimates, Tables 24-A,B
Alexander, 24-18
Gofman, 24-1,4,5, Ta24-A,B; 36-ALL
Goldman et al, 24-6,7,8
RERF (as basis), 24-10, Ta24-B; 25-16
Webster, 24-15,17
"Chickens home to roost," 24-13,14
China and radiation research, 24-2,16,17; 35-15
Chi-square test, 27-1
Christy 1987, 5-6; 8-4
Chromosome aberrations:
Duration, 35-17
In nuclear shipyard workers, 35-16,17,18
Radiation-induced (lab), 18-3; 35-Pts 4 + 8
Repair of, 18-3,5; 35-Pts 4+8
Chromosome breaks, by single-track action, 19-8
Cigarettes, 17-8 spondylitics; 21-12 TB patients
Cohen 1987, 35-2
Cohort = a group, a band.
Colon cancer and diagnostic X-rays, 17-5
Colon: see Large intestine.
Combining DG 1 + 2: see Dose-Groups 1+2.
Comparability of dose-groups, 11-1,2; 12-3,4;
21-14,17; 22-21
Competing cause of death, 11-2; 12-5; 15-8
Compton effect/process, 20-2,3; 32-ALL
Concave-downward shape*, Figure 13-C
And modified LQ model, Figures 23-D,G
Concave-upward shape*, Figure 13-C
And unmodified LQ model, Figures 23-B,C
"Concrete, set in," 5-1,2
Confidence-limits, 13-3, Ta13-B; 27-Pt 2
Conflict-of-interest, 2-1
Confounding variables, 4-2; 11-1,2; 12-4,5; 17-8;
21-ALL; 35-4,15
Congdon 1987, 35-3,4,5
Consensus, artificial, 2-1; 24-15
"Consensus of scientific community" (Ansp88), 22-12
"Consensus" on DREFS, 22-7,12 Ansp88; 25-11 Beir90
Consensus vs. independent analysts (Mog89), 24-15
Constant-cohort, dual-dosimetry idea*, 6-1,2
Constant-cohort, dual-dosimetry method, Chaps 6 + 25
Decision pending at RERF, 5-9,10; 6-1,2
Demonstrated: Chapters 9 through 17, and 30.
Everything to be gained, 6-2; 25-3
General need for, 5-ALL; 25-Pt 1; 25-9,10
Needed for Spondylitics, 17-7
Needed to avert first crisis, 25-9,10; 30-1
Not used by RERF, 5-7,8; 14-3; 24-10; 25-10
Constant K-values through time, 16-2; 17-1 T 4
"Constant, meaning y-intercept, 15-5; Ta29-B,C
"Constant risk-ratio through time, 13-5; 17-1 T 4;
28-1
Continuity issue for A-Bomb Study, 1-2;
5-5,6,7,8, Ta5-A+B; 6-1; 10-1,2; 25-1,3,6
Control group = Reference Group, 9-1; 11-2
Cooperative Study of Lipoproteins 1956, 5-1
Correlation coefficient squared*, 29-1; Ta29-D
Cross-over of DS86-T65 kermas, Ta10-C
Crisis for A-Bomb Study, 25-9,10; 30-1
Cumulative cancer-rates: see Aggregate.
Curie (Ci) of X is the amount of X required to
produce 37 billion radioactive decays per second.
Curvature: see Dose-response shape.
-
"If at first you don't succeed, you are
running about average." -- M.H. Alderson
D
Darby 1987, 17-5,7,8,9
Dartmouth College (Wennberg), 34-3
Davis 1987, 21-12
Death of epidemiology as a science, Fore-1; 25-2
"Dedicated group of scientists" (DOE), 24-13
Delta rays, 19-2
"De minimis non curat lex" (the law does not
concern itself with trifles): see Exclusion of
low doses from risk-benefit estimates.
Denver-Type study*, 21-13
And Alexander, 24-17,18
And Beir80, 21-14; 24-16
And Sagan, 35-14,15
And Webster, 24-16
China (Liu87), 35-15
China (Zu86), 24-16
Department of Energy (USA): see Doe; see Watkins.
Dependent variable (on y-axis), 29-2
DeSaia 1989, 8-5
Detectable real vs. UNdetectable real effects,
18-18; 21-9,10,13,14; 24-11,12,14,20; 35-20
Diagnostic errors, A-bomb in-utero series, 21-5,6
Diagnostic errors and site-specific analyses,
11-3,4; 12-3; 25-5
Diseased organs, effect on ca-latency, 22-19,24
"Disinterested" research-sponsors, 5-8; 35-2,21
Doe 1987, 1-4; 14-6; 22-12; 24-6,7,8,9,11,12,13,
24-14,18, Ta24-A; 34-1,2,3
Doe 1988: see Anspaugh.
DOE clean-up costs, 24-14,15; 25-13
DOE proposal to revise dosimetry, 5-5 (Kerr)
DOE, safe dose, 1-4; 24-12,13; 25-13
Dorland 1951, 35-1
Dose at cell-nucleus level*, 19-1; 20-6;
34-6; 35-4
Dose at tissue-level*, 19-1; 34-6; 35-4
Dose-Group 2, mean organ-doses 1.5 & 1.9 rems, 8-5
Dose-Group 3 being lowest exposed group, 11-3
Dose-Group 8, dose underestimated by RERF, 14-2
Dose-Groups, by cities, Ta9-D
Dose-Groups 1+2 in A-Bomb Study:
Mean internal dose of only 654 millirems or 861
millirems, 8-5; 9-1
Providing the spontaneous rate, 13-3; 28-1
Should be combined, 8-5; 11-2; Ta28-A; 35-20
Dose-Groups 2 and 3, subdivision:
Half-groups w. different ages ATB, 7-2
Subdividing underway, 5-8; 7-2; 8-5; Ta26-N;
35-20
Dose-Groups 6+7+8 combined, 11-2,3; 22-13
Dose, proportionality with tracks, 20-1
Dose rate effectiveness factor: see DREF.
Dose-rate: lowest conceivable, 18-4; 20-6,7;
23-13; 25-13
Dose-rate: occupational, 21-7 (Lumin.); 35-16,18
Dose-response model = mathematical equation which
describes how response varies with changing dose.
Dose-response relationship, Table 13-C*:
And causality, 4-1; 21-8; 22-21
"Cherished hypothesis" of upward curvature, 23-1
Epidemiologic reality-check, see: Reality-check.
Equation of best fit, Chapter 29
Good fit described & depicted, 14-3, Fig14-A
"Repair" not delivering upward curvature,
18-6,7; 21-19,20
Same in initial persons and person-yrs, 30-ALL
Same in T65DR & DS86, 14-1,2,8
Dose-response shape, various analysts:
Linear in shape (Beir80), 22-3,9
Linear in shape (Unsc88), 25-8,9
Linear or supra-L in shape (Beir90), 25-5,9
Linear or supra-L in shape (RERF 87, 88), 14-3,4;
24-11
Pre-judgment of shape (Beir80), 22-3,9; Fig23-H
Pre-judgment of shape (Ncrp80), 23-4
Pre-judgment of shape (Nih85), 23-4,5
Supra-linear (Gofman), Chapters 14, 29, 30
Upward curvature, Muirhead 1989, 30-1
Upward curvature, consensus in past, 22-ALL
Dose^power, 29-2; Ta29-D
Doubling dose*, 22-22
"Downstream" victims of poor research, 24-2,3
DREF = Dose-rate effectiveness factor. Chapter 22.
DREF*, 22-1
BEIR-3, 22-12 (bottom right)
BEIR-5, 25-10,ll,12
BEIR-5, "Nevertheless...", 25-12
"Cherished hypothesis" vs. data, 23-1
"The ultimate DREF", 22-25
"Two to ten" range, 22-4,10,12,14; 25-10,11,12
UNSCEAR 1988, 22-14; 25-10
"Droop" (future K-values), 16-4
DS86 = Dosimetry System 1986.
Leaving lots unsettled, 8-3,4
DS86 subcohort*, 5-7, Table 5-B
DS86: what was the rush?, 5-7
Duration of radiation effect, 4-1; 12-3; 13-5,6;
15-Pt 7; 16-2; Chap 17 ALL; 25-6
-
"If you have an important point to make,
don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile-driver.
Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it
again. Then hit it a third time -- a tremendous
whack!" -- Winston Churchill
E
e*, 20-9; Ta23-A
E = Expected rate; rate in an unexposed group.
Earthquake rescuers, 24-20
Effective track*, 18-11
Electric Power Research Institute: see EPRI.
Elias 1978, 20-3
Ellett 1987, 5-6,7,8; 8-1,4
Embrace of data from China, USSR, uncritically,
24-2,8,15,16; 35-15
Embrace of Holm Study conclusions, uncritically,
22-15,16,19; 34-9
"Enhancement" of a database, 5-7; 6-1
Enthusiasm for new dosimetry, versus unintended
consequences, 5-8,9; 6-2
"Entitled" (nature is), 16-2
Environmental dose: see Exclusion, see "Background."
Epidemiology = a science identifying and measuring
the factors which determine the frequency of a
disease in a population.
Epidemiology, death of, Foreword; 25-2
Epidemiology (human) as reality-check on laboratory
and non-human data: see Reality-check.
EPRI = Electric Power Research Institute.
And Catlin (Doe87, Doe88), 24-6; 34-2
And HEALTH PHYSICS JOURNAL, 35-2
And hormetic research, and Sagan, 35-2
Equation for a straight line, 15-2,5
Equation of best fit*, 29-3; Ta29-D
Estimated = predicted = calculated, 29-3
eV = electron-volt.
Evans, H.J. 1979 and 1987, 35-16
Evans, J.S. 1985: see Nrc85.
Evans, J.S. 1986, 22-10,11; 34-3
Evans, R.D. 1955, 33-2
Evolution and mutations (Sheldon Wolff), 35-10,11
Evolution and radiation, 18-4; 34-3,4,8
Excess relative risk*, 17-2
Excessive subdivision of data:
Biologically meaningless values, 35-20,21
Causes small-numbers problem, 22-6; 25-8; 35-20
Delays insights indefinitely 22-11; 25-8; 35-21
Every database rendered inconclusive, 4-2; 12-2;
25-8; 35-20
Overinterpretation of "wiggles," 17-3
Results taken seriously, 25-8; 35-20,21
Statistical significance removable, 35-20,21
Thin data invite errors, 12-2; 22-6; 35-20
Exclusion of low doses from risk-benefit estimates,
1-5; 3-2; 18-18; 22-25; 23-15; 24-18,19,20
25-16
Exp, in equations*, 20-9; 23-4, Ta23-A
Expected, or E in O/E*, 17-2
Expected cancer-rates (meaning without a dose), 5-2
"Experts disagree?" 22-4; 25-9; 30-1
Reason for disparity on Ca-Yield, 25-13
Reason for disparity on Chernobyl, 24-8,9
Exponential modifier of two-term equation*, 23-4
Extrapolation:
ABS high-dose data less reliable than low, 22-13;
24-10
Extrapolation not needed from high doses, 13-7;
14-1,7,8; 15-7; 22-13; 23-3,10; 25-8
Increase-factors needed, not DREFS, 23-9,10
Linear extrapolation as an issue, 15-7;
22-2,7,8,9,11; 23-3; 34-6,7
"Eyebrow raising" (on altered studies), 6-1
-
"If you have anything to tell me of
importance, for God's sake begin at the end."
F
Fallout, cesium from weapons-testing, 36-28
Fallout doses, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, 5-7; 8-3
Fallout doses, Chernobyl, Ta24-A+B; 36-ALL
"Fashionable" (no way to settle threshold), 21-19
FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA). 24-14
Feinendegen 1987, 35-5,6,7,8,9
Feinendegen 1988, 18-3,5; 20-7; 35-5,6,7,8,9
Fever (equivalent of 400 rads), 19-1
"Figments of the imagination" (Taylor), 34-5
Flags not worn by low-dose cancers, 18-2,17
Flags of warning (about neutron overestimation), 8-6
Fluence = number of traversals per unit area in some
specified time-period.
Flukes (statistical), 21-18
"Forty years of searching" (Taylor & Wolfe), 34-5,8
Fraudulent research (prevention), 5-1,2,3; 24-2,3
Free radicals from normal metabolism, 19-6;
35-3,5,7,8
Free radicals, induced by tracks, 19-4,5; 35-3,5,7
Free radicals: threshold speculation (Yalow), 19-6;
similar speculations 35-3,9 (Fein87,88)
Freeman 1987b, 19-2,3
Frigerio 1976, 21-14
Fry 1981, 8-8,9
Fry 1987, 5-8; 8-3,7
"Fully competent carcinogenic lesion," 19-8
Funding of radiation research, 1-1; 24-13,14;
35-2,21
-
"If you keep your mind sufficiently open,
people will throw a lot of rubbish into it."
-- William A. Orton
G
Gamma rays, as photons, 19-2
Gardner 1976, 20-3
Generalizing about humans from non-human data,
22-ALL; 25-11,13. See Non-human data.
Generalizing from ABS about shape, 14-6
Generalizing from breast-cancer, 21-20 about
threshold; 22-3 about dose-response
Genetic injury heritable, 1-5; 18-1; 24-19; 35-21
Gilbert 1985 & 1989, 22-10; 34-3
Gilman 1988, 21-5
Global perspective, Chernobyl, 24-13,14; 25-16
Gofman 1950a, 1950b, 1954, 5-1
Gofman 1956: see Cooperative Study.
Gofman 1966, viii
Gofman 1969, vii; 5-3; 13-6
Gofman 1970, vii
Gofman 1971, vii
Gofman 1979, 21-11
Gofman 1981, 5-4; 8-4,6; 12-1; 13-6; 14-6;
Ta16-C; 18-1; 19-1; 21-1,5,11,13; 22-4; 23-5;
24-4; Ta24-A,B; 25-13
Gofman 1983, 8-7
Gofman 1985, 3-1; 8-7; 21-11,12,19; 24-5; 34-7,9
Gofman 1986, 18-1; 20-3,5; 21-1,3;
24-1,4,5,8,9,15, Tables 24-A,B; 33-7; 34-9
Gofman 1987, 35-15
Gofman 1988a (hormesis), 35-2
Gofman 1988b (dual dosimetry), 5-3
Gofman 1988c (interim analysis), 5-5; 11-3
Gofman 1989a (supra-linearity for 3 follow-ups),
5-4,5; 11-3; 14-6; 30-1
Gofman 1989b (response per 10K PYR), 6-1; 30-1
Goldman 1987: see Doe87.
Goldman on threshold, 34-2
Goldschmidt 1985, 34-3
Good fit described & depicted, 14-3, Ta14-D, Fig14-A
Goodhead 1988, 18-4; 19-5,6; 20-4; 33-10
Grahn, Douglas, 35-5
Guilford 1956, 29-2
==================================
H
Hall 1981, 23-8,10,11
Hammersen 1985, 20-3
Hancock, Malcolm "Mal," vii
"An independent analyst of a different sort."
Hanford nuclear workers, 21-11
Harper 1957, 21-16
Harvard University (Evans, McNeil), 34-3
Harvey 1985, 21-8,9; 34-6
Hayek 1987, 29-1,2,3,4; Tables 30-D,E
Health Physics Journal, 3-2; 24-17; 35-2
Health Physics Society (Alexander), 3-2; 24-17
Heritable genetic damage, 1-5; 18-1; 24-19; 35-21
Heterogeneity of populations, 23-6; 35-18"
Hickey 1981, 21-14; 34-3,4; 35-1
Hickey 1985, 34-9
Hickey 1988, 34-3,4
High Background Radiation, China, 24-16; 35-15
High-LET*, 8-10
Agreement on no threshold, 18-1
Earlier induction of cancer, 8-7
Hildreth 1983, 1985, 1989, 17-6
Hill 1984, 20-7
Hiroshima bomb, yield uncertain, 5-7; 8-3,4
"Hit," by a track, 19-1; 20-5,7
Hoffman 1985, 12-1
Hogue 1989, 35-2
Holm 1980a and 1980b, 22-15,16
Holm 1988, 21-13; 22-Pt 5
Consistent w. opposite conclusions, 22-23,25
Honseki*, 5-3
Hormesis*, 1-4; 35-1,3
Hormesis, allusions outside Chapter 35, 1-4;
18-2; 25-1; 34-3,4,8,9; 36-22
Hormesis and deadliness of error, 35-2,19,21
Howe 1984, 17-6; 21-4,5; 22-14,15
Hrubec 1989, 21-12
Hypothesis:
Of concave-upward human dose-response, 14-6,8;
22-ALL; 23-1,2,3
Of flawless repair, 18-2,9; 21-Pt 1
Of genetic basis of carcinogenesis, 18-2,3,15
Of hormesis, 35-1
Of LQ dose-response*, 23-1,9
Of safe dose, 18-1,15,16
Of troublesome trio, 18-6,7,16
"Hypothetical" cancer, 12-3; 13-3,7; 18-18;
24-19; 25-14
-
"When your work speaks for itself, don't
interrupt." -- Henry J. Kaiser
I
Iceberg, tip of, 1-5
ICRP = International Commission on Radiological
Protection.
ICRP 1977, 22-1,8,9
ICRP raising neutron RBE by factor of two, 8-9
Ilyin 1987 (U.S.S.R 1987b), 24-7,8
Ilyin 1988 (U.S.S.R 1988), 24-7,8
Immune system, 18-2,17; 35-13,14
Incidence vs. mortality, 12-2,3; 21-13 (breast RR)
Incineration of radioactive waste, 24-19
Inconclusive studies, nature of, 21-Pt 2, 21-17
Inconsistency:
On acceptable control-groups, 22-25
On conjecture, 24-17,19
On human vs. non-human data, 22-19,20; 25-11
On proof, 18-18
On sufficiency of evidence, 22-6; 25-11
Increase-factors for low-dose estimates, 23-9,10
Initial persons and risk-analysis, 12-1,5
Initial persons not on RERF diskette, 7-1; 11-3
Instability of small numbers, 12-2; 14-4; 15-3,7
Interagency Rad'n Research & Policy, Alexander, 34-1
Interagency Rad'n Research & Policy, BEIR-5, 1-1
Interim estimates from ABS (Go88c, Go89a), 11-3
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 35-16
International Comm'n on Radiological Prot: see ICRP.
Interpolation, 14-1,7; 24-10; 25-8
Interpolation: see also Extrapolation.
Inter-stellar perspective, 24-14; 25-16
Inter-track phenomena & carcinogenesis, 19-6,7,8
Intra-track phenomena & carcinogenesis, 19-6,7,8
Single-track action, 19-8; 24-12
"In-the-box"*, 12-3; 13-5; Ta13-B
In-utero A-bomb series, 21-5,6
In-utero dose-response, Nrc89, 22-10
In-utero studies, several, 21-Pt 1; 34-6
In vitro = "in glass" (laboratory work).
Iodine-131, slow dose-rate, 22-16
-
"What is research, but a blind date with
knowledge." -- Will Henry
J
Jablon 1963 and 1965, 5-3
Jablon 1971, 5-4
Jablon 1972, 4-1; 5-4
Jablon 1980, 34-3
James 1988, 35-14
Johannessen 1985, 20-3
Johns Hopkins University (Wagner), 34-6
Journal Of The American Med. Assn. (Loken), 34-4
Journal Of The American Med. Assn. (Rennie), 24-3
J-shaped dose-response, 35-21
==================================
K
Kato 1980, 4-1
Kato 1982, 4-1; 5-5; 8-5
Kato 1987, 8-5; 35-20
Kaul 1987, 31-1
Kellerer 1987, 18-3,4; 19-1,6
Kellerer 1988, 22-25
Kellerer as a leading figure in microdos'y, 19-6
Kennedy 1978, 23-8,9
KERMA = Kinetic energy released in material.
Kerma -- plain, FIA, shielded--*, 8-2
Kerr, George, of Oak Ridge Natl Lab, 5-3,4
Kerr 1979, Table 9-A
Kerr 1987a, 5-3,4
Kerr 1987b, 8-1; 32-1,3
Kerr 1988, 8-5,8,9; 13-4
KeV = kilo electron-volts. Or, 1,000 eV.
Kinetic energy = energy of motion.
Kneale 1987, 21-5
Knox 1987, 21-5
Kondo 1975, 1984, 1985, 35-13,14
Kusunoki 1988, 35-20
K-value*, 15-1
All-cancer vs. site specific, 22-22
K-values, constant through time, 16-2; 17-4
K-value's relation with:
Age at exposure, 15-3,4
Cancer-Yield, 15-1; 16-3
Doubling dose, 22-22
Duration of effect, 15-7,8
Excess relative risk, 22-24
Lifetime Cancer-Yield, 15-1; 16-2,4
Percent increase per rad in spont. rate, 15-1
Slope of a straight line, 15-2
kVp = kilovolt, peak.
-
"The larger the island of knowledge, the
longer the shore of wonder." -- Ralph Sockman
L
L = Linear. LQ = Linear-quadratic.*, 14-4; 23-1
Lancet and conflict-of-interest issue, 2-1
Lancet and hormesis, anonymous 1989, 35-2
Land 1979, 8-6
Land 1980, 22-3
Land 1980b, 35-20
Land 1984, 8-5
Land 1988, 21-13
Landfills and radioactive waste, 24-19
Langley 1971, Table 29-D,E
Large intestine dose as approx'n of dose to all
cancer-sites, 8-3; Ta9-A
Latency period, in diseased thyroid, 22-19,24
Law of minimum hypotheses, 21-5,19
Least possible disturbance*, 18-2,3,4; 19-1,2
Additional discussions, 18-9,16; 20-6;
21-Pt 1, 21-17; 34-6
Lee 1982, 21-3; 22-20
Lesher 1965, 35-5
LET = Linear Energy Transfer.
LET, rising along a single track, 19-2,3
Leukemia:
Accounts for 220 cases out of 6,270 total
malignancies in ABS, Ta26-A,B,C,D
"Data-rich" Registries disregarded, 22-3,6,9
"Except leukemia"*, 22-5
Why leukemia is excluded, 12-2; 36-4
Gofman and RERF risk coeffs, 24-5; 34-9; 36-4
Inducibility may be exaggerated because it
appears earlier, 8-7
Peaking 7.5 yrs post-irradiation, 22-19; 36-3,18
Small-numbers problem, 12-2; 22-3,9
Leukemia, various analyses:
Beir80 analysis of shape, 22-3,9
Beir90 (concave-upward), 25-9,11,12
Gofman86, Chernobyl-induced est., 24-5; 36-19
Evans86, 22-11
Loewe & Mendelsohn, 5-4
Unscear88 (suggests linearity), 25-9
Library analogy (for genetic information), 18-4
Liebhafsky 1960, 27(Part 2)-2
Lifespan lost by excess cancer, 12-1,3,4; 36-20
Lindell 1989, 24-20
Linear dose-response relationship:
In BEIR-3, 22-9,10
In BEIR-5, 25-9,10
In Unsc-88, 25-8,9,10
Not upper-limit of risk, 22-25; 34-6
"Pseudo-linearity" (modified LQ), 23-7
Linear Energy Transfer*, 19-2,3
Linearity* 13-4; 14-3; 15-2 (K = a constant)
Linear-quadratic: see LQ.
Linos 1980, 21-11
Little 1981, 23-8,9
Liu 1987, 35-15
Liver cancer, 15-8
Livermore Lab, Anspaugh 34-2; Gofman vii, viii;
Loewe & Mendelsohn 5-4
Lizzie Borden Methods of Database Management, 25-2
Lloyd 1980, 35-19
Lloyd 1988, 35-15,18,19,21
Loewe 1980, 5-4
Loewe 1981, 8-7
Loken 1987, 34-4
Longevity in irradiated animals, 34-7; 35-Pt 2
Lorenz 1955, 35-4,5
Loss of life expectancy, 36-20
Lotus123, Ta23-A; 29-1,3
Low-dose(*), 1-1
Low-dose exclusion-proposals: see Exclusion.
Low-dose human data lacking, allegedly, 13-4
According to Doe87, 22-12
According to Goldschmidt, 34-3
According to Loken, 34-4
According to Preston & Pierce, 22-13
According to Sagan, 35-15
According to Southwood (NRPB), 34-5
According to UNSCEAR 1986, 22-11
According to UNSCEAR 1988, 25-8
According to Wolfe86, 34-8
According to Yalow84, 34-9
Low-dose human data NOT lacking, 13-4,5,7; 18-7;
21-Pt 1; 22-25; 27-Pt 1; 34-4,6; 35-15
Lower limit, focus on it criticized, Foreword
Focus in Doe88, 24-12,13; 34-2
Focus in Ncrp85, 22-20
Focus in Un88, 22-20
Lowest conceivable dose, dose-rates, 18-2,4,9,16;
19-1,2; 20-6; 25-13; 34-6
Occupational dose-rates, 21-7; 35-16,18
Low-LET: see LET.
LQ = Linear-quadratic.
LQ hypothesis of rad'n carcinogenesis, 23-1,4,5,6
LQ-L model*, 22-3
LQ model for dose-response*, 19-8; 23-1,5
LQ model: intra-track carcinogenesis dominates at
low doses, 19-8; 23-3,11, Figs23-B through 23-H
LQ (Q-positive) curve approx Dose^1.4, 29-2,3,4
LQ (Q-negative) curve, Fig23-H. See Negative Q-term.
LSS = Life Span Study of A-bomb survivors.
Luckey 1980, 34-4; 35-1
Luckey 1982, 35-1
Lung-cancer, Ankylosing Spondylitics 17-8; BEIR-5
25-5,6; tuberculosis patients 21-12: Un86 22-21;
Un88 25-9; Waka83 22-5
Lysenko and Soviet abuse of science, 35-11
-
"It makes all the difference in the world
whether we put truth in the first place, or in the
second place." -- John Morley
M
MacMahon 1962, 21-6,7
Magee 1987, 19-4,5
Maki 1968, 5-3
Male vs. female dose-response shape, 14-2
Male vs. female radio-sensitivity, 15-4
Martell 1989, 33-1
Martin 1970, 17-6
"Masked" effects from 100 mrads/year, 34-2,8
"Masked" fatalities from Chernobyl, 24-2
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (Rasmussen), 34-4
Max Trax approach*, 18-10
Mayo Clinic (Linos Study), 21-11
McGregor 1977, 8-6
McTiernan 1984, 22-17
Mean life of radionuclides*, 36-9
Medical X-rays: see X-rays, hazard.
"Meltdown" (of future K-values), 16-4
Mental retardation (in-utero irradiation), 21-5,6
MIA = "Missing in Action."*, Ta5-B, 5-7; 8-3
Mice, and dose-response 23-8,9; and longevity
35-3,4 5; and thymidine kinase 35-5 T 9;
and tumor inoculation 35-14
Micro = one millionth part of. Also: very small.
Microzone of reactivity*, 19-3
Miller 1989, 17-6; 21-4,5
Misdiagnosis of original cancer-site, 11-5; 12-2
Modan 1977, 21-2; 34-6
Modan 1989, 17-6; 21-2,3,9
Moghissi 1989, 24-15
Mole 1974, 21-6
Mole 1978, 8-6
Mole 1987, 17-9
Mole 1988, 21-6
Mole on threshold, 21-6
Monson 1984, 34-6
Moore, Felix (Natl Heart Inst), 5-1
Most important single carcinogen, 1-5; 3-1;
24-19,20; 25-15
Motivation for changing input (general), 5-2
Motivation for rushing into DS86, 5-7
"Mountain" of unsuitable data worse than none,
21-11; 25-11
mrad = millirad = 0.001 rad.
mrem = millirem = 0.001 rem.
Muirhead 1989, 12-2; 30-1
Myrden 1969, 21-1; 22-3
"Myth" of supposed propriety of DREFS, 22-7
"Myth with every shot," 21-16|
-
"My definition of a free society is a society
where it is safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai Stevenson
N
Nanometer = one billionth of 1 meter; 10^-9 meter.
Naor 1987, 35-14
NAS = National Academy of Sciences (USA).
And retroactive changes of ABS, 5-7; 25-3
Handles BEIR Reports, 1-1; 25-3; 37-1
Handles DOE sponsorship of RERF, 1-1
National Academy of Sciences: see NAS.
National Cancer Institute (Upton), 34-5
National Council on Radiation Protection: see NCRP.
National Institutes of Health: see NIH and Nih.
National Radiological Protection Board (U.K.),
30-1; 34-5; 35-18
National Research Council (of NAS), 1-1
Natural background dose, 21-13 T 16; 25-15; 34-8
NCRP = National Council on Radiation Protection.
Ncrp 1980, 14-6; 22-1,2,3,4,6,10;
23-1,2,3,4,5,8; 24-12; 25-12
Ncrp 1985, 22-16,20; 25-11
NCRP on raising neutron RBE 2-fold, 8-9
NCRP: supra-linear dose-response in A-Bomb Study
breast-cancer incidence, 14-6; 22-3
NCRP: supra-linear dose-response in combined
Hiroshima cancers, 22-3
"Needs of the RERF" (for perpetual changes), 5-7
Negative Q-term, Fig13-C; 14-3,4; 22-3,5,9;
23-3,4; Fig23-H; 29-2
Net benefit (hormetic hypothesis), 35-2
Net carcinogenic result, 18-2; 35-7,9,11,14,21
Net change in cohort-size, 1950-85, Ta5-B
Net change in dose with new dosimetry, 8-3; 13-4,
Net effect of regression analysis on Ca-Yield, 14-9
Net result of age-sex normalization, 11-2,3; 13-3
Net result of repair, 18-6,7
Neutron dose, error (ABS), 5-4; 8-3,6,7; 25-1
Neutron loss at Hiro filled by DS86 gamma, 8-3
Neutron dose, Hiro vs. Naga, 8-Pt 5; Ta9-C & Ta10-E
Studies of Nagasaki only, 22-5,23
Neutron dose-response assumed linear, 8-8; 14-5
Neutron fraction of total dose ABS, 8-5,8; Ta9-C;
Ta10-E; 14-5,6
New dosimetry, first mention, 1-1,2
New York Times 1982, 24-16
New York Times 1988, 25-13
New York Times 1989a, 25-13
New York Times 1989b, 24-2
New York Times 1989c, 24-3
"Next-to-zero" doses (threshold research), 21-19
N,gamma reaction*, Ta9-A
NIH = National Institutes of Health (USA).
Nih 1985, 13-6; 14-6; 18-6,9; 22-5,6,7;
23-4,5; 34-6,8,9
"No evidence below 50-100 rems": see Low-dose human.
Non-fatal cases excluded from this book, 12-2,3
Non-human data, pitfalls, 21-17; 23-6,8; 35-5,21
Beir90 comment, 25-11
Eternally inconclusive for humans, 25-16; 35-21
Holm comment, 22-20
Ncrp85 comment, 25-11
"No suggestion of upward curvature" (Beir80), 22-3
Not-in-City cohort, 5-3; 7-1
Not Proven in Peoria, 21-19; 22-6,10,11
NOVA 1988, 2-1
NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USA).
Nrc 1985, 14-6; Ta16-C; 22-10,11; 34-4; 35-2
Nrc 1987, 24-5,6,11,12; Table 24-A
Nrc 1989, 22-10
NRC and "below regulatory concern," 24-19
and hormetic hypothesis, 34-3,4; 35-2
Nuclear medicine and Chernobyl, 24-15,16
Nuclear pollution, slow Chernobyl-equivalents, 25-17
See Exclusion of low doses from risk-benefit.
Nuclear power, Alexander comment 24-17; 34-1;
Gofman & Tamplin vii; Wagner comment 34-7;
Yalow comment 34-9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: see NRC entries.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Alexander), 3-2
Nucleus: diameter, 20-3,4
Effect on track-analysis, 33-7,8,9,10
NUREG = Nuclear Regulatory.
NUREG-1250 = Nrc 1987.
NUREG/CR-4214 = Nrc 1985.
Nurses exposed to ionizing rad'n, 3-2; 24-19
Nussbaum, Dr. Rudi, 22-25
-
"We owe almost all our knowledge not to those
who have agreed, but to those who have differed."
-- Charles Caleb Colton
O
O = Observed rate; rate in an exposed group.
Oak Ridge National Lab, Fry 5-8; Gofman vii;
Kerr 5-3,4; Upton 34-5
Oberfield 1989, 15-8
Objectivity and curve-fitting, 23-9
Objectivity and refusal to generalize, 21-19
Obligatory, 14-8; [15-1]; 24-10; 25-13
Oblivion for unaltered study, 1-2; 5-8; 6-2; 25-3
Observed rate*, 17-2
"Observed" to mean AFTER normalization, 11-2,3
Occupational dose-rates, 21-7; 35-16,18
Occupational study-populations (limits), 21-11
Occupational exposures: see Exclusion of low doses.
Ockham's Razor (William Ockham), 18-16
Off-center tracks, 19-3
Office of Science & Technology Policy, 1-1; 34-1
"Official bodies" (Nih85), 23-4
"Official estimate" of risk (Webster87), 24-15
Okajima 1987, 8-4
Oldest age-band, final results by 1982, 15-4,7
Oldest age-bands accounting for 77% of cancers so
far, 12-4; 13-6,7
Olivieri 1984, 35-11
Orthovoltage X-rays*, 8-5
Orwell (George), 1-2
==================================
P
Paretzke 1987, 19-3,4; 20-2,3; 32-1,2
pCi = pico-curie. There are 27 pCi per Bq.
Peer review, 2-2; 24-3
Holm Study 22-18,19; Zufan Study 24-16
Peoria response, 21-19; 22-6,10,11
Percent increase per rad, 15-Pt 1; 16-2; 24-4
Perpetual revision of dosimetry, 5-2,7,8; 14-6,8
Personnel, bound to change in A-Bomb Study, 5-8
Person-year*, 12-4
Person-years & dose-response, 13-4; 14-2; 30-ALL
Photo-electric effect*, 20-2,3; 32-1
Photon = the quantum of electro-magnetic energy, a
discrete particle having zero mass and no charge.
Pico-second = 1 trillionth of 1 second; 10^-12 sec
Pierce 1987, 22-12,13
Pierce 1988, 5-7
Pierce: thanks for Tables 26-E thru 26-M, 7-1
"Pioneers" (DOE) in risk-assessment, 24-14,18
Pituitary irradiation, 21-2,9
"Plowshare" Project (civilian nuclear bombs), vii
Pohl-Ruling 1983, 35-15,17
Poisson equation, first mention, 18-10
Equation itself, 20-5
Posture (ATB), 5-7
Predicted = calculated = estimated, 14-1; 29-3
Pre-judgments in research (examples):
In Beir80 (supra-linearity), 22-3,9; Fig23-H
In Beir90 (supra-linearity), 25-5
In Holm88 (latency), 22-19
In Ncrp80 ("leveling off"), 23-4
In Nih85 (cell inactivation), 23-4,5
Preston 1985, 5-6
Preston 1986, 7-1; 9-1; 12-2; 13-4; 14-2;
25-9; Ta27-A; 30-1
Preston 1987a (TR 1-86 abbr.), 4-1; 5-6; 7-1
9-1; 11-1; 25-9
Preston 1987b (TR-9-87), 5-7; Ta5-B; 8-2,3,7;
Ta9-A; 11-3; (TR-9-87), 12-1,2; 13-5,6;
14-2,7; 16-2; 22-13,14
Preston 1988 (TR-9-87, abbr.), 4-1; 12-1; 24-11;
Ta24-B
Preston, Dale (BEIR-5 advisor), 25-5
Preston-Martin 1987, 22-16,17
Preston, R.J. 1973, 23-8
Preston, R.J. 1980, 18-5
Presumption (of X) when there is no basis OTHER
than X in evidence, 13-5; Ta16-A, Note 7; 28-1
Prevention of cancer: see Cancer prevention.
"Private" LSS study (ABS), 5-6
"Project Plowshare" (civilian nuclear bombs), vii
Promotional agents of cancer, 19-8; 22-19
Proof, provisional in medical sciences, 21-17,19
Proposal for CC-DD reporting: see Constant-cohort.
Prospective studies, meaningful standards, 5-1,2
"Pseudo-linear" dose-response*, 23-7
Public Health Service 1980, 3-1
Public health: see Cancer prevention; see Heritable.
PYR = Person-years.
-
"To get maximum attention, it's hard to beat a
good, big mistake!" -- Unknown
Q
Q = quadratic dose-term, 14-3,4
Q = Quality factor, 8-9; Dose-Unit table, Index-12
Q.E.D. = quod erat demonstrandum ("which was to be
proved"), 25-7
Quadratic term meaning Dose^2, 29-2,4
Questionable practices: see Scientifically quest'b.
"Quicksand" (ABS foundation in peril), 25-1
==================================
R
Rad*, 20-1,2
Radford, Edward, 13-3; 22-4; 34-7
Radiation And Human Health, written in 1980, 8-6
Radiation community*, 1-1
"Radiation controversy," 3-3
Radiation Effects Research Foundation: see RERF.
Radiation Research (journal), 7-1
"Radiobiological grounds" (Icrp77), 22-8
"Radiobiological reasons" (Nih85), 22-5
"Radiobiological theory" (Pierce87), 22-12
"Radiobiologic findings" (Webster80), 22-4
Radiobiology*, 22-2
And hormetic hypothesis, 35-throughout
"Learn all we can from it," 22-25
Pitfall, cell-studies, 21-17; 23-8,9; 35-9,21
Pitfall, non-human data, 21-17; 25-11; 35-21
Reality-check by epidemiology: see Reality-check.
Radio-iodine (diagnostic), Holm Study, 22-Pt 5
"Radiophobia" (Yalow), 34-8,9
Radium dial (gamma exposure), 21-7; 24-19
Radium Luminizer Survey, 18-8, 18-Pt 6; 21-7,8
Radon-220 (thoron), 3-2
Radon, an uncertainty-factor, 21-14; 25-15
Radon (BEIR-4 Report), 34-2
Random action of tracks, 18-16; 19-1,2
Random differences in sampling, 12-5; 13-3; 15-3,7
Random fluctuations of small numbers, 11-2
"Random ionizations," 1-4; 24-12; 34-1,2
"Range of high-speed electrons, Ta20-FG; 33-ALL
Rasmussen 1974 and 1989, 34-4
"Rasmussen Report" (1974), 34-4
Raw A-bomb data, used in Go88c, Go89a, 11-3
Raw A-bomb data, used sometimes, 17-ALL; Ta28-A
Raw data, control of, 2-1
Ray 1986 and 1987, 34-4,5
RBE*, 8-5; also Dose-Unit table, end of Index
RBE = Relative Biological Effectiveness.
RBE = 100 if use RBE 10 w. T65DR neutron error, 8-7
RBE and density of energy-depositions, 20-5
RBE for neutrons arbitrary, 8-9
RBE for neutrons not learnable from ABS, 8-7
RBE: higher values reduce Cancer-Yield, 8-9
RBE on route to infinity, 8-8
Reality-check (on radiobiology) by epidemiologic
data, 8-9; 14-5,8; 18-2; 21-17; 22-2,7,25;
23-9; 25-11; 35-16,21
"Record shows" (what was known, when), 22-3,4,9,25
Reduction-factors*, 22-1; see DREF.
Reductions in estimated risk by our data-handling:
Choice of higher body transmission-factor, Ta9-A
Choice of neutron RBE 20 instead of 10, 8-9
Dose-adjustment for small body-size, Ta31-B
Linear approx'n from zero to 5 cSv, 14-7
Normalization for age-sex, 13-3
Regression analysis, net effect on Ca-Yield, 14-9
Ultimate spont. ca-rate 14% not 20%, 13-6; 16-4
Redundancy of carcinogenic lesions, 23-5,6
Reference group, A-Bomb Study = Dose-Groups 1+2.
8-5; 9-1; 11-2
Reference group, all its cancers spontaneous, 28-1
Regression analysis, Chapter 29.
First mentions, Table 13-B Note 5; 14-1
Reliability of datapoints, 29-2
Reinforcement, one study by another, 21-5,10 and
21-18 T 20
Relative Biological Effectiveness: see RBE.
Relative risk model supported by A-Bomb Study, 17-4
Rennie 1986 and 1988, 24-3
Repair of injured genetic molecules, 18-Parts 2,3,4
Activation of, 18-4,15; 23-6; 34-4; 35-10,18
Excision-type repair, 18-3
Key to threshold issue, 18-ALL
Not reducing per-rad risk as dose falls, 18-6,7;
21-19,20
Repair may provide threshold, according to:
Evans86, 34-3
Hickey81, 34-3,4
Lorenz, 35-4
Southwood87, 34-5
RERF = Radiation Effects Research Foundation.
RERF*, 1-1
Address, 4-1; 5-10
Decision pending on our proposal, 5-9,10; 6-1,2
Note of appreciation for, 7-1,2
On Cancer-Yield, 24-11, Table 24-B
On constant K-values, 16-2
On duration of radiation effect, 13-5
On shape of dose-response, 14-3,4; 24-11
Publications: see TR entries.
Sponsorship, 1-1
"Useful" risk-estimates, 14-4
Risk estimates: see Cancer-Yields; see K-values.
Risk increase-factors, 22-13; 23-9,10
Risk reduction-factors (for low & slow): see DREF.
Risk-ratio = exposed / Ref,*, 13-5,6
Risk-ratio, constant through time,
13-5; 17-4,9; 28-1
Roesch 1968, 8-2
Roesch 1987, 5-5,7; 8-2,3
Roesch as editor of DS86 book (Roes87), 8-2
Ron 1987, 22-16,17
Ron 1988, 17-7
Rossi 1984, 33-7,8,9
Rossi, Harald (in Beir 1980), 22-4,5
Rounding artifacts, Ta9-B; Ta9-C; Ta11-A
Rounding practices at RERF, 5-5, Ta5-B
RR = Relative Risk. Or Observed/Expected.
R-Squared as corr coeff*, 29-1,4; Ta29-B,D
R-Squared, excellent values, 15-4
Running out of people, 15-8
Runyon 1985, 27 (Part2)-1
Rush to introduce DS86, 5-7
Rust 1966, 35-5
-
"In nature, there are neither rewards nor
punishments -- there are consequences." -- Robert
G. Ingersoll
S
Sacher 1964, 35-4
Safe dose*, 18-1
Sagan 1987, 35-3,15
Sagan 1989, 21-15; 35-2,3,5,8,9,12,13,14,15
Sagan as EPRI representative, 35-2
Sagan on hormesis, 35-throughout
Sagan on "tiresome debate", 35-15
Sampling variation*, 12-5; 13-3; 14-4; 15-7
Random fluctuations of small numbers, 11-2
Taking wiggles seriously, 17-3; 25-8; 35-20
Working in either direct'n, 16-4; 25-17
Sasaki 1968, 35-17
Scavenger*, 19-5
Science (journal) and DOE, 24-7; 25-13; 34-2
Science (journal) and EPRI, 35-2
Science: revealing phenomena when direct
observation impossible, 18-18
Scientifically questionable practices:
Excessive subdividing of data: see Excessive.
Partial reporting of follow-up data, 22-16,17,19
Replacing human evidence by preferred hypothesis,
22-ALL; 25-7,11,12,13
Replacing input, A-Bomb Study, 5-ALL; 25-Pt 1
Replacing input, Ank. Spondylitis Study, 7-13
Ruling out certain results by constraints, 22-3,9
Substituting one curve for another, 22-9
Throwing out dose-commitment (Chernobyl), 24-6,8
Throwing out Dose-Groups, 14-4; 24-11; 25-5
Throwing out follow-up yrs, 14-3; 22-18,19; 25-5
Unblinded review of diagnoses, 24-16
Unequal checking of input (high doses), 36-19
See also:
Embrace. Inconsistency. Lower limit (focus on).
Not Proven in Peoria. Pre-judgments.
Site-specific analyses.
Self-censoring experts, 2-1
Self-publishing, 2-2
Semi-prudent estimates, Foreword-2; 25-17
Shadley 1987a, 35-10,11; Figure 35-A
Shadley 1987b, 35-10
Shigematsu's letter, 5-10,11
Shimizu 1987, Ta5-B; 7-2; Ta9-A; Ta10-A,B,C;
14-3,4,6; 25-4; 26-1, Ta26-N,O
Shimizu 1988, 5-8; 8-7; 11-3; 12-2; 13-5,6;
14-3,4,6,7; 16-2; 17-2,3; 22-1; 24-8,10,11;
Table 24-B; 25-4
Shore 1977, 21-18; 22-3
Shore 1980, 34-6
Shore 1984 and 1985, 17-7
Shore 1986, 17-7; 21-18
Shortened lifespan, irradiated animals, 34-7; 35-Pt 2
Sies 1985, 19-6
Sigmoid curve = a curve with a single
inflection-point dividing concave-upward and
concave-downward segments.
Signal-to-noise ratio*, 21-13
Significance: see Statistical.
Silverberg 1990, 21-14
Sinclair 1985, 13-4
Sinclair 1988, 8-7; 22-25
Sinclair of NCRP, 5-8
Single-site analysis: see Site-specific.
SIR = Standardized Incidence Ratio, 22-18
Site-specific analyses:
Beir90 analysis, 25-6
Data too thin, 4-2; 25-8; 35-20
K-values unstable, 21-10; 22-22
Leukemia, 12-2; 22-3,9; 25-11
Misdiagnosis problem, 11-4; 12-2; 25-5
Not done in this book, 11-4
Precluding answers, 22-11; 25-8; 35-20
Thin data invite errors, 12-2; 22-6; 35-20
Unscear, 22-11 (Un86); 25-8 (Un88)
Vs. all canc combined, 4-2; 12-2; 13-3; 22-6,22
Skin cancer, not often fatal, 12-3
"Sky is falling" (Alexander), 24-17
"Slippery dealing" in research (Rennie), 24-3
Slope*, 23-3. [ Slope = KRo ], 15-2
Slope, in reduction-factors, 22-1; 23-3
Slow delivery of dose, 1-3; 13-4,7; 23-Pts 6+7;
25-10 T 13
Slowest conceivable dose-rate, 18-4; 20-6,7; 25-13
Small-numbers problem*, 4-2, 11-2; 12-2; 15-3
Comparison with a billion, 14-4; 15-7
From site-specific analyses, 12-2; 22-6;
25-8; 35-20
From subdividing Dose-Groups, 8-5; 35-20
From subdividing follow-up periods, 17-3
In high-dose data of A-Bomb Study, 11-2;
14-8; 22-13; 24-10
In hormetic speculations, 35-20,21
In youngest age-band ATB, 15-3,4
Overinterpreting "wiggles," 17-3; 35-20
Taking results seriously, 25-8; 35-20,21
Smoking, 17-8 (Spondylitics); 21-12 (Davis87)
Smoothing operation, 15-4
Society for Promotion of Cancer Research 1981, 13-6
Southwood 1987, 34-5
Soviet Union and genetic research (Lysenko), 35-11
Soviet Union and radiation research, 24-1,2,7,8,15
Species (other): see Mice; see Non-human data.
Specific-site analysis: see Site-specific.
Speculations, lacking symmetry, 35-9,12,13
Spengler 1983, 21-11,12
Sponsor-friendly experts, 2-1
Sponsor who is disinterested, 5-8; 35-2,21
Spontaneous ca-mortality USA, 22% in 1986, 21-14
Spontaneous cancer-rates:
Affected by age, 12-4,5; Ta17-B; Ta28-A
Must be comparable in compared groups, 11-1;
21-14,17; 22-18,21
Tripling and more while Risk-Ratio (O/E)
remaining constant, 17-3,4; 28-1
"Spurious" finding possible (Darby 1987), 17-5
Standards of research, Foreword-1; 6-2
Statistical "flukes," 21-18
Statistically unstable, 15-3; 34-5
Statistical manipulations, 13-3
Statistical significance:
In ABS specifically, 13-2,4,5; 14-3,8; 25-9;
27-Pt 1; 29-4 & Tables 29-D,E; Tables 30-D,E
Significance removable by excessive subdivision,
12-2; 22-11; 25-8; 35-20
Weight of evidence vs. exceptions, 18-7
Statistical strength ("power"), 13-1; 22-11
Steer 1973, 11-3
Stewart 1956, 1958, 1970, 21-5
Stochastic effects = effects whose probability (not
degree of severity) is related to dose.
Straight line, equation for, 15-2,5
Strominger 1958, 22-23
Structure of a database (part of input), 5-8; 6-1,2
Student's t test, 29-3,4; Ta29-D (formula)
Subcohort, DS86* 5-7, Ta5-B; 10-2
Subdivision: see Dose-Groups 2 and 3; see Excessive.
Sub-linear*, 23-6,7
Substance vs. source of analyses, 2-2; 24-16
"Supernatural omniscience," 22-19
Supra-linear*, Figure 13-C; 23-6
Supra-linear dose-response relationship:
Also called concave-downward, Figure 13-C; 23-7
Also called "linear-quadratic," Figure 13-C"
Fit by dose-exponent below 1.0; 14-2,3; 29-2
Fit by LQ, Q-negative, Fig13-C; Fig23-H; 29-2
Fit by LQ w. modifier and Q-positive, 23-Pt 4
Low-dose risk 2-fold above linear, 15-7; 25-13
Lower K-values at higher doses, 15-7; Ta16-A
No risk-reduction for slow-low, 23-Pt 7; 25-7
Persistence, 5-6; 14-6,8; 23-9; 25-5,8,9; 30-1
Risk/rem is higher at low doses, Figure 13-C
Throughout dose-range, 13-4; 14-8; 23-6,8;
25-8,9
Supra-linear dose-response, various studies:
In 1950-74 ABS follow-up, 5-4
In 1950-78 ABS follow-up, 5-5
In 1950-82 ABS follow-up, 5-6, 13-4,7; 14-ALL;
29-ALL; 30-ALL; 25-8
In 1956-1985 ABS follow-up, 14-5; 22-1; 24-11;
25-5,9
In Hrubec's women, 21-12
In Lee's rats, 22-20
In Wolff's human chromosomes, 35-11, Fig35-A
Sztanyik 1978 (early entrants), 8-4
-
"We cannot command nature except by
obeying her." -- Francis Bacon
T
T = Through (as in pages 23-12 T 15)
T65 = Tentative 1965 Dosimetry.
T65D established in 1965, 5-3
T65DR = Tentative 1965 Dosimetry Revised* 1-1
T65D: TR-9-87 using it to mean T65DR, Ta5-B; 8-7
Taylor 1980, 34-5
Terzaghi 1976, 23-8,9
Thiessen, association with DOE, 7-2
Thiessen, thanks for Tables 26-N and 26-"O", 7-2
Thiessen: we expect MIA info from him, 10-2
Threshold idea*, 18-1
Threshold (safe dose or dose-rate):
A-Bomb Study cannot address, 21-10
Burden of proof, 25-16; 34-7
Exactitude in per-rad risk, 18-10; 22-22
Exactitude in tracks, 18-7; 33-6,7
Disproven, Chap.18 supported by 19,20,21,32,33
Imperfect repair as Achilles' Heel, 18-3
Key coupling of epidemiology w. track-analysis,
18-2,7; 21-1,10,19; 25-14; 34-6
Threshold (false) arranged for compound XYZ, 5-2
Threshold, various views (more in Chapter 34):
Alexander, 3-2; 24-19; 34-1
BEIR-3, 25-13; 34-2,3
BEIR-5, 25-14
DOE 1987 (Goldman), 24-12,13; 25-13; 34-2
Hickey, 21-14,15; 34-3,4
Mole, 21-6;
NRC 1985 (Gilbert), 34-3
NRPB (Southwood), 34-5
UNSCEAR 1986, 25-14; 34-5
UNSCEAR 1988, 21-17; 33-7
Upton, 18-6; 21-10; 34-5,6
"Yalow Model", 19-6
Throwing away cancers past age 75 in ABS, 25-5
Throwing away dose-commitment (Chernobyl), 24-15
Throwing away Dose-Groups, 14-4; 24-11; 25-5
Throwing away follow-up yrs, 14-3; 22-17,19; 25-5
Thyroid cancer, seldom fatal, 12-3; 24-9
Time Magazine 1989, 24-2
"Time will tell," 14-5,6 final shape; 15-4 final
K-values; 16-4 final Lifetime Cancer-Yield;
28-1 ultimate spontaneous rate, ABS
Tokunaga 1984, 8-5
"Tortured mathematics" (Radford), 13-3
TR = Technical Report (from RERF), 7-1
Track*, 19-1
Track-analysis = calculating number of primary
ionization tracks per cell-nucleus.
Tracks, ionization (earliest mentions), 18-2; 19-1
Lowest conceivable dose, 18-4; 19-1,2
Never fractional, 18-10; 19-1,2; 20-5
Off-center, 19-3
Their products as a single unit, 19-6
Trailing digits, discrepances, Table 11-A; Index-1
Transformation of cells*, 23-8,9
Transmission-factors*, 8-2
Troublesome trio, 18-2,3,6,9,16; 21-2,9
TR sequenced by year (last two digits):
TR-24-68. See Maki 1968.
TR-11-70. See Beebe 1970 and Beebe 1971.
TR-10-71. See Jablon 1971 and Jablon 1972.
TR-16-73. See Steer 1973.
TR-1-77. See Beebe 1977 and Beebe 1978.
TR-12-80. See Kato 1980 and Kato 1982.
TR-1-86. See Preston 1986 and Preston 1987a.
TR-9-87. See Preston 1987b and Preston 1988.
TR-12-87. See Shimizu 1987.
TR-5-88. See Shimizu 1988.
Tuschl 1980, 35-12
Twins (in-utero study), 21-8,9
"Two to ten" DREF, 22-4,10,12,14; 25-10,11,12
-
"For peace of mind, resign as general manager
of the universe." -- Larry Eisenberg
U
"Ultimate reduction factor," 22-25
"Ultra-careful" on control-groups, 22-25
"Ultra-careful" on levels of proof, 18-18
"Ultra-low" Chernobyl estimates, 24-Part 9
Underascertainment of cancer-deaths, 11-3; 25-4
Undifferentiated cells, radiosensitive, 35-13,14
United Nations: see UNSCEAR.
United Nations Demographic Yearbook 1984, 13-6
University of California 1989, 24-3
"Unknowledge" in medical science, Foreword
UNSCEAR = United Nations Scientific Committee on
Effects of Atomic Radiation*, 1-1
Unscear 1977, 22-1,7,8,11
Cancer-Yield of 1.0, 22-7,8; 24-9,15
Unscear 1982, 34-6,7
Unscear 1986, 14-6; 18-3; 21-2,3; 22-11,12,20;
25-14; 34-5
Unscear 1988, Fore-1,2; 1-2; 21-3,5,6,17,19;
22-14,15,16,19,25; 25-1 T 16; 33-7; 34-7
Cancer-Yield, 25-4,11
No dual-dosimetry, 25-2
No track-analysis, 21-17
On shape and DREFS, 22-14; 25-8,9
Upper limit of risk and linear model, 22-25; 24-14
Upton 1987, 18-6,9,10; 21-10; 34-5
Upton 1988, 18-5
Upton 1989, 21-13; 34-5,6
Upton, on threshold, 18-6; 21-10; 34-5,6
Upward convex*, 23-7
uR = micro-roentgen. Roentgen approximates a rad.
"Useful" risk-estimates in RERF's opinion, 14-4
USSR: below. Also see Soviet Union.
U.S.S.R 1986, 24-5,6
U.S.S.R 1987a, 24-7
U.S.S.R. 1987b (Ilyin 1987), 24-7
U.S.S.R. 1988 (Ilyin 1988), 24-7
Utero: see In-utero.
==================================
V
Veterans Admin'n and radiation claims, 24-17; 34-1
"Violent disassembly" of Chernobyl reactor, 24-7
Violin (lost in orchestra), 21-13
"Viral vandals," 18-4
Virsik 1982, 18-4
Vitamins and hormetic hypothesis, 35-2
-
"If the shepherds do not believe that wolves
exist, then some of the sheep are going to have a
bad time." -- David F. Horrobin
W
Wagner 1989, 34-6,7
Wakabayashi 1983, 8-5; 22-4,5
Wall Street Journal 1987, 24-16
Wall Street Journal 1989, 24-2
Watkins, James (Secretary of DOE), 24-14,15
Watkins 1989a, 1989b, 24-14
Webster 1981, 34-4
Webster 1982, 34-7
Webster 1987, 21-15; 22-16; 24-2,15,16,17; 34-4,7
Webster, on Chernobyl 24-15,17;
on hormesis 34-7; on shape 22-4
Weight of the evidence, 18-7; 21-11,16,17,18
Weighted average (calc'n), Table 9-C Note 5; Ta11-H
Weighting of datapoints for regression input, 29-2
Welcome or unwelcome results, 21-19; 22-19
"Whistleblowers" at DOE, 24-14
White House Office, Sci & Tech Policy, 1-1; 34-1
Whole-Body Cancer-Dose*, 24-5; 36-3
Whole-body doses never uniform from external
source, 9-1; Ta9-A
Wiencke 1986, 35-10
Wolfe 1986, 24-9; 34-8
Wolff 1984, 35-11
Wolff 1988, 35-9
Wolff 1989, 24-16; 35-1,2,9,10,11
Woolson 1987, 5-5
==================================
XYZ
X-rays, as photons, 19-3; 32-1
X-rays, diagnostic, 3-1,2; 8-5
X-rays, diagnostic, and colon cancer, 17-5
X-rays, diagnostic, needless overdosing, 3-1; 34-7
X-rays, hazard underestimated by A-bomb, 3-1;
X-rays, higher RBE than higher-energy gammas,
13-4;, 20-5 (Item M)
Yalow 1980, 1981, 1982, 34-8
Yalow 1983 and 1984, 34-9
Yalow 1988, 25-15; 34-9
Yalow 1989, 19-6; 22-16; 34-9
Yalow, on hormesis 34-9; on threshold 19-6
Yield uncertain of Hiroshima bomb, 5-7; 8-4
Yoshimoto 1988, 21-6
Younger are more sensitive: see Age sensitivity.
Zero risk model (DOE), 1-4; 24-12,13; 25-13
Zufan 1986, 24-16