[ RadSafe ] Fw: Is there a threshold for radiation effects?

Jerry Cohen jjc105 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 20 16:11:54 CDT 2011

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
To: Demetrios Okkalides <od at tlmq.com>
Sent: Thu, October 20, 2011 2:04:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is there a threshold for radiation effects?

And, I agree with you. The problem is that it would be impossible to prove no 
effects at very low doses, since you cannot prove a negative . The 
counter-argument is that  very low dose effects, if any, could not be 
statistically discernible, but that doesn't prove that they don't exist.
jerry cohen

From: Demetrios  Okkalides <od at tlmq.com>
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; The International Radiation Protection 
(Health Physics) MailingList <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Thu, October 20, 2011 1:15:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is there a threshold for radiation effects?

I quite agree with you. My qualitative impression from many years of hospital 
work is that indeed the LNT assumption is seriously flawed. However, it seems to 
me that it is not my (our?) obligation to prove that no adverse effects exist at 
low dose-low rate exposures. It should be the obligation of the LNT's advocates 
to prove the opposite.

THEAGENEION Anticancer Hospital

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is there a threshold for radiation effects?

> Dr. Edward Calabrese has received much  criticism recently for suggesting that
> Muller may have willfully withheld information indicating  the existence dose
> threshold for radiation effects. Muller's research had a strong influence on 
> early BEIR committee recommendations for the assumption of LNT which provided
> the basis for many radiation exposure regulations, primarily ALARA.
> Since Muller is deceased, we may never know what his motivations were, but the
> overwhelming evidence currently available indicates that LNT is a bogus 
> Adherence to LNT has caused the needless squandering of billions dollars to
> protect against a nonexistsent risk. There  has been much discussion on 
> on this issue. I was wondering whether the recent "revelations" have changed
> anybody's opinion on the subject.
> Jerry Cohen
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list