[ RadSafe ] LNT

Jerry Cohen jjc105 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 26 18:42:05 CDT 2011

Maury, Dog, et al,
    There is still a strong constituency supporting LNT. It may seem cynical, 
but you think about it, without LNT, there would be no ALARA, and without ALARA, 
many, if not most of the jobs in the radiation protection business would be 
unecessary. I often wonder how much support of LNT is motivated by true belief, 
and how much by economic self-interest.
Jerry Cohen

From: Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>; Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
Sent: Mon, September 26, 2011 3:52:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT

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'
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
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