[ RadSafe ] query

[jjcohen at prodigy.net]

Dear Rainer, Michael,and all,
    Perhaps your evaluation of ICRP, NCRP, and other proponents of LNT is
correct, but I believe that my assessment of their behavior is more
consistent with human nature. IMHO, it was first determined that LNT should
be the basis for radiation guidance. Then, the technical defense of LNT
followed. Any reasonably intelligent group of individuals can find a
rational explanation to defend almost any  position.
    It is what motivates their decisions and recommendations in the first
place that drives the process, and if you believe that the weight of
scientific evidence supports their LNT advocacy, then I must respectfully
disagree. OTOH, if you want to understand what motivates their position,
advancement of self-interest is always a good bet.

Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu>
To: <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; "Bernard Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>; "RadiatSafety"
<radsafe at radlab.nl>; <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:52 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] query



Rainer:
"pre-eminence of exposed worker populations, preoccupation with initial
DNA damage as the sole determinant of an organism's response to
genotoxic substances"
Jerry:
"Vested self interest/Embarrassment"

I would agree with Rainer's points, but disagree with Jerry's. I admit
that I have not had time yet to digest the entire report, so I base my
conclusions on general knowledge of its contents and public remarks by
some of its authors at the HPS meeting. But my take is that they accept
that there are data supporting the ideas of hormesis and adaptive
response. There are also data supporting the mechanisms of the bystander
effect and genomic instability. All of these data are interesting, but
none are absolutely convincing at this point and do not lead to a strong
conclusion, so they defaulted to the epi data for most of their
analyses. Their charge as a committee is different than the task
undertaken by (for example) Feinendegen, who is an independent scientist
trying to push science forward. They have to stop at particular times
and draw conclusions based on the best knowledge of the moment and put
forward a prescription. At the moment, these various areas mentioned
above are still being understood. When they conclusively point one way
or another, I think that the group (which will of course have different
membership next time around also) will have the scientific integrity to
accept this. The French Academy, in the same way, may have come to a
different conclusion, but I see no evidence in either case of a badly
biased approach or of scientific misconduct, as many are claiming.

Rainer:
"disastrous Brenner et. al. paper"

Definitely agreed.

Mike

Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone (615) 343-0068
Fax   (615) 322-3764
Pager (615) 835-5153
e-mail     michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com