AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: LNT/threshold/hormesis - what do HPs really

[Maury Siskel]

Please consider making a greater distinction between science and 
politics. All of us recognize the importance of intersubjective 
agreement regarding definitions and so on while also recognizing that 
the methodology of science is not merely a matter of popular appeal.
In passing, I choose (my bias) to note also the import of the 
preponderance of evidence.

Therefore, polling should aim beyond LNT as such. Polling would be 
better directed toward some semblence of cost:benefit analyses of 
regulatory options, their bases, and educated (expert?) opinions about 
optimum regulatory applications (politics).

The uphill effort has been and remains obvious. The rules of evidence 
for science are not shared by law, theology, politics, and the arts.  We 
humans place tremendous value in superstitution and belief combined 
increasingly with the shelter of rules and "going by the book". And we 
pay the huge costs of having our cake while avoiding the judgments and 
responsibilies for obtaining the cake.

And those darn scientists keep trying to peel away the wool over our 
eyes!  Poll the politics of the matter, not the science.

Cheers and with admiration for all of you in this applied science,
Maury&Dog
_______________
"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather 
straps."

======================
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

>My first impulse was to concur. Majorities don't count. Approaches to new scientific truth initially always were promoted by a minority or even an individual!  
>
>But! This hassle around LNT/Hormesis is 
>  
>
------------ snipped ---------------