[ RadSafe ] LNT

Tue May 12 13:48:48 CDT 2009

Serendipity! 

If not for LNT, we wouldn't have so many of you-all trained for the boom in nuclear power 

that must occur when solar, wind , hydro and tide costs perplex the "clean" energizers! 

Art Robinson, DDP Director, previous Pauling partner, principle in Oregon Inst Science and Med, 

Home School Program designer for about 65,000 (including his 6 kids) has 2 of them about to get their 

doctorates in nuclear engineering. 

He knows something. 

         Be ready. 

Howard Long  

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjc105 at yahoo.com> 
To: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com> 
Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:07:12 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT 

Steve,   
 It's not just the regulators that depend on LNT for their job security. In a 1990 paper entitled "ALARA: A really dumb idea", we estimated that at least 50% ofall jobs in the field of radiation safety, exist because of belief in LNT. 
Jerry Cohen 

________________________________ 
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> 
To: Kai Kaletsch <eic at shaw.ca>; radsafe at radlab.nl 
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 6:37:34 PM 
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT 

May 10 

        Concerning point (1) below, could it be that LNT is still plaguing us primarily because of its inertia? 

        Could it also be that LNT still plagues us because it provides job security for regulators who have the power to force their views upon their hapless regulated victims?  Outside of the regulators, who accepts LNT other than the disciples of the late John Gofman and radiophobes such as Rosalie Bertell? 

Steven Dapra 
sjd at swcp.com 

At 10:18 AM 5/10/09 -0600, Kai Kaletsch wrote: 
> Hi Al, 
> 
> you wrote: 
> 
> "If LNT is the generally accepted theory..." I think we have to look at what "generally accepted" means. If I understand the LNT debate correctly, the differing thoughts can be summarized like this: 
> 
> 1) Some people believe that LNT is a pretty good model and is no worse than other models (hormesis/threshold). So, we might as well keep it. 
> 2) Some people believe that  LNT has significant shortcomings and is probably not the correct scientific model, but it is easy and convenient to use for making policy. So, we might as well keep it, as the basis for making policy. 
> 3) Some people believe that LNT is either incorrect or irrelevant at very low doses and the use of LNT at very low doses should be restricted. See for example the HPS position statement http://hps.org/documents/risk_ps010-1.pdf , which explicitly states : " the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources." 
> 4) Some people believe that there is strong evidence that LNT fails. Some of these people think that it is time to adjust public policy accordingly. Others think that this should be a scientific debate and public policy should not be an issue. 
> 
> While some of the politically appointed bodies still cling to 1), it seems to be the minority position among scientists. The HPS states: "There is, however, substantial scientific evidence that this model is an oversimplification. It can be rejected for a number of specific cancers, such as bone cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and heritable genetic damage has not been observed in human studies. However, the effect of biological mechanisms such as DNA repair, bystander effect, and adaptive response on the induction of cancers and genetic mutations are not well understood and are not accounted for by the linear, no-threshold model." 
> 
> There used to be people who thought that LNT was actually a correct description of the organism's response to radiation. This was before we knew about biological mechanisms such as DNA repair, bystander effect, and adaptive response. I have not heard any credible scientist state, in the last 10 years, that he/she personally believes that LNT is the scientifically correct model and that it describes the dose response 100% correctly for all types of ionizing radiation. 
> 
> It would be extremely easy to prove me wrong on this. All it would take is for someone on this list to state that they personally believe that LNT is the scientifically correct model that it describes the dose response 100% correctly for all types of ionizing radiation. 
> 
> It will be interesting to see if there is still anyone out there who truly accepts LNT as a scientific theory. 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> Kai 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <al at solidsurfacealliance.org> 
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:45 PM 
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 196, Issue 3 
> 
> 
> "I listen with interest when people talk about hormesis 
> and/or thresholds, and await models and studies that would elevate one 
> of those concepts to the dominant paradigm status." 
> 
> 
> Excellent point and one that if logic rules the discussion, ends the discussion. If LNT is the generally accepted theory, any claims to the contrary have the burden of proof. If the BEIR committee changes their position on LNT, I will be convinced. Prior to that, right or wrong, the radiation is chocolate crowd will lack credibility. 
> 
> Al 

[edit] 

_______________________________________________ 
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/ 