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

[John R Johnson]

John et al

LNT is the "linear, non threshold" assumption of radiation dose and risk. It
is necessary, in my opinion, so that doses at different rates and amounts
can be summed. The sum is than used for radiation "protection", but should
not be used for radiation "risk".

Another assumption we all seem to accept is that we all have the same risk,
but we know that a persons radiation risk depends on their age, sex, genes,
etc.

We could not control or limit risk without these assumptions.

Therefore I consider LNT to be necessary.

John Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
Sent: March 15, 2006 11:07 AM
To: John R Johnson; 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


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