AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by anti-nuclear Greens

[John Jacobus]

Dr. Johnson,
May be that is not the right phase.  What do you
consider the LNT to be?

--- John R Johnson <idias at interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:

> John et al
> 
> LNT is more than "an instrument for radiation
> protection". We thought it was
> neccessary when we wrote NCRP Report No. 121.
>  _________________
> John R Johnson, Ph.D.
> *****
> President, IDIAS, Inc
> 4535 West 9-Th Ave
> Vancouver B. C.
> V6R 2E2
> (604) 222-9840
> idias at interchange.ubc.ca
> *****
> or most mornings
> Consultant in Radiation Protection
> TRIUMF
> 4004 Wesbrook Mall
> Vancouver B. C.
> V6R 2E2
> (604) 222-1047 Ext. 6610
> Fax: (604) 222-7309
> johnsjr at triumf.ca
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
> Behalf Of John Jacobus
> Sent: March 13, 2006 12:16 PM
> To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; tom.mohaupt at wright.edu;
> maurysis at ev1.net
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by
> anti-nuclear Greens
> 
> 
> Rainer,
> Both you and Tom are correct.  The BEIR and ICRP
> acknowledge that research shows the biology is more
> complicated than the LNT.  Nevertheless, the LNT was
> and still is an instrument for radiation protection.
> 
> However, I do not think that groups like the ICRP
> and
> BEIR can be held responsible for the misuse of the
> data by those with an anti-nuclear agenda.  I do not
> believe there are measurable risks below 100 mSv,
> and
> I am sure that many of the members of the ICRP and
> BEIR would agree.
> 
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> > Tom:
> >
> > Although you may be right regarding the parenthood
> > of the monster, presently it is thriving and
> > prospering mainly due to the nurture granted by
> the
> > BEIR committees. If I remember correctly, the
> draft
> > for the upcoming ICRP recommendations tried to
> spell
> > out and discourage some of the most extreme abuses
> > of the LNT postulate - which unfortunately they
> > continue to uphold as a hypothesis reflecting
> > radiobiological reality instead of a conceptual
> tool
> > necessary for radiation protection practices.
> >
> > Best regards, Rainer
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von
> > Tom Mohaupt
> > Gesendet: Montag, 13. März 2006 15:20
> > An: Maury Siskel
> > Cc: RadiatSafety
> > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fears promoted by
> > anti-nuclear Greens
> >
> > Why aren't the ICRP and NCRP addressing these
> > exaggeration issues? I told Roger Clark of the
> ICRP
> > a few years back at an HPS meeting that "it isn't
> > the use of the LNT hypothesis that worries me,
> it's
> > the abuse".
> > The system is wrought with people who
> hyper-inflate
> > the radiation hazard to fit agenda. The LNT is
> being
> > outright abused on many issues. My neighbor
> recently
> > told me that she refused to have x-rays because
> they
> > are dangerous. If the ICRP and NCRP continue to
> > purvey the LNT then they should be at the
> forefront
> > of preventing its abuse. At the very least they
> > should support us in our effort to address abuse
> as
> > it arises.
> > There are two ways for an idea to become a
> societal
> > paradigm: it's the truth or it's repeated so often
> > that people believe it to be the truth.
> > That is what we're seeing - a barrage of clatter
> > inculcating the message into people's heads. Once
> > it's there, the truth may become moot. The ICRP
> and
> > NCRP created the monster, they should at least
> help
> > corral it.
> > Tom
> >
> > Maury Siskel wrote:
> >
> > 

+++++++++++++++++++
"Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse."
Adlai Stevenson

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com