AW: [ RadSafe ] query

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

Jerry:

If I left somehow the impression that proponents of the LNT postulate can draw on relevant empirical evidence (human carcinogenesis from chronic exposure below say 500 mSv) I apologize and recant. Even the ATB survivor data can be analysed in ways which below about 200 mSv make them compatible with a no-effect hypothesis. So actually the alleged chief-witness for the validity of the LNT postulate can be queried to give a negative answer. In an ordinary court the verdict would be clear. 

(OT: As far as your exegesis of Genesis 8,21c is concerned, you may be correct. Yet, as a German saying goes, those sitting in a glasshouse should beware of throwing stones and being fallible myself I therefore prefer to suspend the jury until evidence is presented.)

Kind regards, Rainer

Dr. Rainer Facius
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Aerospace Medicine
Linder Hoehe
51147 Koeln
GERMANY
Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
FAX:   +49 2203 61970

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: jjcohen at prodigy.net [mailto:jjcohen at prodigy.net] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. August 2005 18:46
An: Stabin, Michael; Bernard Cohen; RadiatSafety; Facius, Rainer
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] query

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