[ RadSafe ] Radiation exposure and the power of zero By JeffreyPatterson | 26 April 2011

Mon May 9 02:32:58 CDT 2011

Hi, Bill,

Being alive of course incurs a 100% integrated risk irrespective of the meaning
of safety!. However, the LNT crowd treats living organisms as dead matter, i.e.
with no biological response to (radiation) damage. That is most probably a poor
assumption. Higher forms of life are not possible without vigorous and efficient
DNA repair mechanisms. Aging probably results from the fact that the repair
mechanisms are not quite 100% effective to begin with and weaken with time.
Regards,
Chris
chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za

On Fri, 6 May 2011 13:42:16 -0400 "Bill Prestwich" <prestwic at mcmaster.ca> wrote

> Hi John,
> 
> This is a longer thing I sent regarding a local discussion here at Mac
> arising from the 86 billion radsafe posting.
> 
> I don't think the radsafe posting was meant to be a rigorous discourse, and
> neither is this reply. To set the record straight, the Linear No Threshold
> (LNT) theory is really an assumption that the probability of a harmful
> effect resulting from  exposure to ionizing radiation is directly
> proportional to the effective dose. Ionizing radiation is the capitalist
> form of radiation which evicts electrons from their molecules. Dose is
> defined as the ratio of energy deposited by the radiation to the mass of the
> object in which it is deposited. The adjective effective indicates that a
> crude attempt has been made to take into account the variability of
> effectiveness of different radiation types and the variability of radiation
> sensitivity of different organs. It is not possible to make a quantitative
> assessment for the scenario described in the article.
>             The logical conclusion of the LNT, which has not been validated
> empirically, is that any finite dose produces a finite probability for harm.
> This is incorrectly translated into the statement that science has shown
> there is no safe level of radiation. This is an Orwellian tactic which takes
> advantage of two facts. First there is no scientific definition of safe, and
> the proponents are implying it is zero probability of harm. Second the
> concept of safe is generally treated as binary. Something that is not safe,
> ie is unsafe, is dangerous. Hence the implication is that any radiation
> exposure is dangerous. Now, given that we live on a radioactive planet, eat
> radioactive food, breathe radioactive air, have radioactive bodies and are
> bombarded by radiation from outer space, this means we must conclude that
> the act of living is dangerous.
>             This does however open up an interesting legal possibility. It
> seems to me humanity has a right to launch a class action suit against the
> religious organizations as representatives of God who, after all, bears the
> ultimate responsibility for all this.
>             Finally the general consensus is that it is not possible to
> obtain statistically significant empirical data with which to test the LNT
> assumption in the range of dose equivalents below the regulatory limits. The
> situation is similar to attempting to detect a signal buried in noise
> without the ingenious signal to noise enhancement techniques employed by our
> electrical engineering colleagues. However, given that the assumption
> ignores the known complexities of biological responses and fails to predict
> observed radiobiological phenomena it is clear that the assumption does not
> have a substantial scientific basis.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of John R Johnson
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:40 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List;
> 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation exposure and the power of zero By
> JeffreyPatterson | 26 April 2011
> 
> Bill
> 
> I agree. Isn't that why we use the ALARA principal?
> 
> John
> ***************
> John R Johnson, PhD
> CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
> 4535 West 9th Ave
> 604-676-3556
> Vancouver, B. C.
> V6R 2E2, Canada
> idias at interchange.ubc.ca
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Prestwich" <prestwic at mcmaster.ca>
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'"
> 
> <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation exposure and the power of zero By
> JeffreyPatterson | 26 April 2011
> 
> 
> > The statement that science has shown there is no safe level of radiation
> > is
> > not defensible, if for no other reason than there is no scientific
> > definition of safe.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of JON
> > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:04 PM
> > To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation exposure and the power of zero By Jeffrey
> > Patterson | 26 April 2011
> >
> >
> http://www.(thebulletin).org/web-edition/op-eds/radiation-exposure-and-the-p
> > ower-of-zero
> > (thebulletin) in parentheses to eliminate any search engine benefit .
> >
> > I am wondering what the opinion among the physicists is regarding the
> > conclusion of this article. It is different from that which I was taught.
> > Especially the last paragraph:
> >
> > We must choose to halt this process. To do this we need to quickly abolish
> >> all nuclear weapons, and make a dramatic and rapid retreat from the use
> >> of
> >> nuclear power to generate electricity. Only then will we demonstrate that
> > we
> >> recognize and appreciate the true meaning of Einstein's prophetic words:
> >> "The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our mode of
> > thinking.
> >> Thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."
> >>
> >
> > I realize he is just a physician but is the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
> > even credible???
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu

____________________________________________________________
South Africas premier free email service - www.webmail.co.za 

For super low premiums, click here http://www.dialdirect.co.za/?vdn=15828