[ RadSafe ] Special issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

[Scott, Bobby]

Dear Dr. Parthasarathy,

 

Thanks for pointing out the special issue of the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientist.  I will take a look at it the first chance I get, which may
be another week or two. Perhaps others on the list may also have
comments on the special issue.

 

Best wishes,

Bobby

B. R. Scott

LRRI

 

________________________________

From: parthasarathy k s [mailto:ksparth at yahoo.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:29 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection( Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: Scott, Bobby; stewart farber; Mike (DOH) Brennan
Subject: Special issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

 

Dear Dr Scot Bobby,

I hope you had a chance to have a quick look at the recently (May 1st,
2012) issued special issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists covering
effects of low level radiation.

You can access it at:



http://bos.sagepub.com/content/current


I shall greatly appreciate  your critical appraisal of the issue. I have
the following preliminary observations:

1) Though the objective of the publication is to equip members of the
public with broad information on  the effects of low level radiation,
the authors with a few exceptions gave the impression that they believe
that radiation is riskier than what is believed.

2) While reviewing radiation effects, new phenomena such as Radiation
Repair Foci (RRF) which are shown to influence low dose interactions
favorably were not even mentioned. The report of the French Academy of
Sciences which is critical of LNT concept is dismissed without any
discussion. BEIR VII report is favourably mentioned while  the "French
study has been criticized, not just on the merits, but also for lack of
objectivity"

3) Work of EPRI is also criticized  because of its relation with
industry; Bulletin is known to be anti nuclear power 

4) The weaknesses of the Life Span Study is highlighted well. But
supported the 15 nation 
nuclear worker study on cancer. The author does not consider the
deficiencies in pooling the occupational histories of workers from
different countries to improve the statistical power of the study though
they have different genetic make up .

5) ON the whole the Bulletin tries to exaggerate the risks of radiation.
Public as a neutral stakeholder is not given a chance to appreciate the
complete picture.

I request you to read the special issue and give your views on it for
the benefit of the list.
I am marking this message to the list and to a few list members for
their participation in the discussion,

Regards

Parthasarathy  







*******************************************************************************

This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to the named
addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and
that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing in this
communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be construed as a
legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
herein.