This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John W. Gofman, MD, PhD
University of California, Berkeley

JAMA. 1995;274(22):1762.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—My estimate that at least 75% of current breast cancer in the United States is due to earlier medical irradiation¹ was called a 12-fold overestimate in the article by Mr Skolnick.² He is quoting Clark Heath of the American Cancer Society, who asserts that I made "two serious errors."

First, an alleged twofold overestimate comes from my "assumption" that dose response is supralinear. This is no assumption. The human evidence from the survivors of the atomic bomb for all cancers combined shows supralinearity fitting the observations provably better than linearity.³ Supralinearity specifically for breast cancer is visible to anyone who inspects the figure on page S26 of Thompson et al,⁴ although the analysis by Land⁵ raises questions.

Second, an alleged sixfold overestimate comes from transport of Japanese evidence to the United States. Why did I not use North American data? Because (1) . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?