AW: [ RadSafe ]LNT's sound theoretical basis (hot and cold of history & journalistic credibility)

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

"The coefficients must have a sound theoretical basis in science or be derived from hypotheses which can be challenged and verified."

Harold,

I could not have said it better to characterize the "risk coefficients" of LNT proponents! 

Regarding the anthropomorphic contribution to climate change the arguments of some of those not on the IPCC bandwagon have not been addressed by its proponents in a way that I would consider compelling. 

Regarding the LNT postulate, not only the empirical basis is virtually non-existent (the RERF data do not pertain to chronic low dose exposures) but also no shred of a "sound theoretical basis" can be perceived which could endow it the status of a model - apart from the mythical hand-waving 'argument' that a single initial DNA damage cannot be ruled out to predetermine death from an ensuing cancer many years later.

Of course, also your remark concerning alternative models does apply to the LNT postulate!

Best 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


________________________________

Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von Harold Careway
Gesendet: Do 08.02.2007 19:39
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: 'Gary Damschen'
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] The hot and cold of history & journalistic credibility

I hope the "implications" from the way this was stated are not true.
Deriving coefficients in a model to incorporate past data is easy to do but
never (1) accurate or (2) precise.  The coefficients must have a sound
theoretical basis in science or be derived from hypotheses which can be
challenged and verified.  If this is true then the model could be more
justifiable.

Secondarily, multiple models can be built that will do the same validation
by past measurements but must be verified by hypothesis and future
prediction.  That is one reason string theory is so under fire, no future
predictions.

Hal Careway

San Jose, CA





>  The current models, when run back in time, reproduce the observations.

>  Bill Prestwich



>  Gary Damschen wrote:



> If the science behind anthropomorphic contributions to Global Warming is
so

> settled, then could someone explain what seems to be a growing number of

> articles similar to this one?



_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/