[ RadSafe ] LNT

[Maury]

Appears to me that evidence favoring alternative(s) to LNT continues to 
expand. It is noteworthy that many (most?, all?) significant science and 
technology advances are enabled by significant improvements in 
measurement capabilities; as we continue to see in health physics. It 
seems also to me that radioactivity can be viewed increasingly as we 
view other forms of stimulation which also are various kinds of 
radiation, e.g., sound, rf, light, cosmic radiation; in short, simply 
all aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I wonder where we might have been over the last 50 years if San 
Fransisco had been leveled by a giant sound bomb dropped by a Japanese 
Mitsubishi G4M (Betty)  in 1943 or if the US had killed most 1945 
residents of Tokyo by dropping a single giant light bomb. Silly 
references, perhaps. But much more seriously, perhaps we might all be 
far better off if ionizing radiation could be researched, used, and 
treated as one more form of stimulation without all the emotional 
baggage of atomic bombs and 'invisible killer rays'
Best,
Maury&Dog
=====================================
.
On 9/26/2011 4:50 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
> That's where hormesis comes in: You may not be able to prove a negative, but you can prove an anti (assuming it exists).
>
> Even the people who support LNT generally acknowledge that the closer you get to zero, the less statistical support the theory has.  This is because back in the day it was really, really hard to measure or reconstruct low dose, there weren't a lot of exposed subjects, and keeping track of everything on file cards was hard.  If nothing else, Fukushima will produce a huge amount of data about people with a fair gradient of exposure, who will be tracked and monitored for the foreseeable future.  If I were betting, I would put money down on this showing that LNT falls apart at low dose.
>
> To continue your analogy, it would be as if you could show that the prayers of the members of one religion were routinely answered, but not the prayers of anyone else.  You might not be able to demonstrate a negative, but you might be able to show where a demonstrated positive stops.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:51 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT
>
> Those who do not subscribe to LNT have the same problem as atheists.
> Just as it cannot be proven that there is no God, it cannot be proven that
> there are no harmful effects from low-dose radiation exposure.
> Philosophically, a negative can never be proven.
> So, it seems the debate may continue indefinately.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)"<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, September 26, 2011 10:24:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Researcher Points to Suppression of Evidence On
> Radiation Effects by Nobel Laureate
>
> Without intending to disparage anyone on any side of the issue, reading
> someone's archived correspondence doesn't necessarily give you complete
--------------------snipped-----------------