[ RadSafe ] scientific arguments and LNT

Ludwig E. Feinendegen feinendegen at gmx.net
Mon May 11 11:41:41 CDT 2009

Hi All:

Thanks to Clayton for well placed arguments.  We need a sound theory and are on the way to it.  What we have now as the latest is in the paper I sent out today.  Here, I follow with a slightly earlier paper and its discussion that appeared in the relatively new journal Atoms for Peace - directed to a wider audience than that of radiation biologists and radiologists.
All the best, 

Ludwig E. Feinendegen, M.D.
Wannental 45
D - 88131 Lindau

Tel: +49 8382 75673     

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton J Bradt" <cjb01 at health.state.ny.us>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] scientific arguments and LNT

> On 9 May 2009 Bob Cherry wrote:
> "Physicists call arguments without firm data to support them, "hand-waving
> arguments." A nicer term might be plausibility arguments.
> I believe the LNT enthusiasts and the hormesis supporters both are making
> hand-waving arguments because neither side has definitive data, but both
> sides have plausible data. It will take something definitive to settle the
> argument.
> I learned while studying for certification in 1980 that the sample
> population needed to establish definitive dose effect statistics at
> near-background doses and dose rates approaches or exceeds the world
> population. Unless things have changed, I don't see how the argument will
> ever be settled scientifically.
> If we can't prove either model to be true at these dose and dose rate
> levels, then the choice between models is mostly or completely arbitrary."
> ***************************
> I don't quite agree.  A scientific argument can be had without firm data on
> either side so long as there is a rigorous underlying theory.  For decades
> the only experimental evidence supporting General Relativity was
> Eddington's famous observations during the 1919(?) solar eclipse.  It
> wasn't until recently that people reviewing Eddington's data and methods
> realized that the reported displacement of fixed stars by the sun's
> gravitational field was within the error limits of his method.  But is
> wasn't just the (erroneous) experimental evidence that convinced people
> that General Relativity was correct - it was the rigor of the theory
> itself.  It makes precise, and therefore falsifiable, predictions - and it
> explains physical reality in a more elegant and comprehensive way than was
> previously available.
> In contrast, LNT and the underlying target theory of radiation cancer
> induction, does not generate testable predictions, nor explain how
> radiation causes cancer.  What is really lacking, I think, is a
> comprehensive theory of cancer itself.
> Clayton J. Bradt
> dutchbradt at hughes.net
> IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.  It is intended only for the addressee.  If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments.  Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dc-low-dose-Feinendegen-et-al-Atoms-for-Peace.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2640757 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://health.phys.iit.edu/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20090511/4c4c2874/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dc-low-dose-Feinendegen-et-al-Atoms-for-Peace-response to	St.Georges.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://health.phys.iit.edu/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20090511/4c4c2874/attachment-0003.pdf>

More information about the RadSafe mailing list