[ RadSafe ] LNT Timeline

Thu May 24 17:58:18 CDT 2007

Randy,

You can't very well leave out ICRP 2005! :-)

Regards, Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Thu 5/24/2007 6:40 PM
To: randy brich; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT Timeline

Randy,
    You seem to have summarized the current LNT status nicely. I was 
wondering what stimulated your interest at this time.  Do you think there is 
a chance that any amount of rational analysis could dislodge well-entrenched 
LNT policies?
Jerry Cohen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "randy brich" <oahesailor at hotmail.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:30 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT Timeline

> Is anyone aware of more recent reports or official proclamations regarding 
> the validity, or lack thereof, of the Linear No Threshold Theory than:
>
> - the June 4, 1999 letter from by B. John Garrick, Chairman, ACNW to 
> Shirley Jackson, Chairman, USNRC that states 100 mrem/y is protective of 
> public health and safety and that collective dose estimates should not be 
> made
> - the 2001 NCRP report on Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold 
> Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation
> - the 2001 ANS position statement on the health effects of low-level 
> radiation concurring with the Health Physics Statement that below 10 rem, 
> risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are 
> non-existent.
> - the 2003 Health Physics Journal summary of low dose radiation effects 
> derived with new biology and technology. These effects included adaptive 
> response, bystander effects, genomic instability, genetic susceptibility, 
> changes in gene expression and alterations in DNA damage and repair.
> - the 2004 organization and funding of RISCRAD, an eight year radiation 
> research program by the European Commission to evaluate the risk from low 
> dose radiation
> - the 2005 French Academy of Science report on the effects of low doses of 
> ionizing radiation on the risk for carcinogenesis which concludes that at 
> low doses, risks from per unit of dose are less than at high doses. This 
> report suggests that repair or protective effects at low doses argue 
> against the Linear-No-Threshold Hypothesis.
> - the 2005 BEIR VII (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) Committee 
> of the NAS/NRC report, "Health Risks from Exposure to Low-LET Ionizing 
> Radiation" which concludes that the risk from radiation increased as a 
> linear function of dose. This supports the Linear-No-Threshold Hypothesis 
> and indicated that it is possible to extrapolate risk from high doses to 
> low doses.
>
> Thanks,
> Randy Brich
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> More photos, more messages, more storage-get 2GB with Windows Live 
> Hotmail. 
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ 

_______________________________________________
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/