[ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Radiation-caused deaths from Chernobyl nuclear accident

[Mohan Doss]

Dear Otto and others,
      I think the reason for the failure of the multitude of proofs to 
dethrone the LNT model is that there are a large variety of factors 
involved in the dominance of the LNT model including psychological, 
political, economic, as well as questionable refereeing in journals (see 
below), sensationalism in media, power of status quo, advisory committee 
power/structure, etc. and the scientific proofs do not address these 
other factors, which are the main reasons the LNT model has survived.   
If we (those who wish to discontinue the use of LNT model and 
investigate the possible uses of radiation hormesis) put our minds 
together, discuss the various reasons for the survival of the LNT model, 
discuss strategies to overcome the reasons, and develop a consensus 
plan, there may be a chance of achieving our goals.   I think time is 
ripe for making this effort and enabling the change.   If there are any 
efforts going on with this purpose, I would like to know about them and 
join the efforts.  Please let me know.  I would also like to open a 
private forum for discussion of this topic to brainstorm and generate 
new ideas and comprehensive approaches, and have created a Google group 
at the following address: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/how-to-end-lnt-model-usage-and-begin-study-of-hormesis 
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/how-to-end-lnt-model-usage-and-begin-study-of-hormesis> 
.  Please join the group if you are interested in discussing this to 
help draft a plan.  I hope more of you who agree with the purpose would 
join the discussion in the group, as certainly there would be strength 
in numbers.  Membership is wide open right now.
     Though it is generally understood that the discontinuance of the 
LNT model will result in lost jobs in radiation technology, in my 
opinion we will need the skills and expertise of people familiar with 
radiation to investigate the potential beneficial effects of radiation 
in a safe manner, and so there would be even greater need for people 
with such skills.
    With regard to questionable refereeing in journals that help sustain 
the LNT model, I came across two major publications that passed 
conclusions in their abstract that contradicted their own data.  There 
is also another paper whose conclusion was discredited more than 2 years 
ago, but there is still no retraction of the paper or its conclusions, 
and it continues to be referred to in recent publications claiming 
cancer risk from low dose radiation. It is not questionable refereeing 
in this case, but the journals and/or the authors probably bear the 
responsibility for retracting the conclusions of the paper.  Please go 
to the Google groups entitled "Publications with Misleading Conclusions 
On Radiation Effects" at the following link: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/publications-with-misleading-conclusions-on-radiation-effects 
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/publications-with-misleading-conclusions-on-radiation-effects> 
to view the analyses of these papers.  You may also be interested in 
reading the related article "Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation 
Hormesis" at the following link: 
http://dose-response.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.2203/dose-response.13-005.Doss
    If you have any comments or corrections on these, please do let me 
know.  Thanks.
    With best regards,
                                             Mohan

Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Medical Physicist,
Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
Fax:   215 728-4755
E-mail:  Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu


On 6/27/2013 12:52 PM, Otto G. Raabe wrote:
>
>> June 27, 2013
>
> That damned faulty linear cancer model of radiation induced cancer
> just will not die no matter how much proof we present.
>
> "A simple fallacy is often more acceptable than a complex truth!"
>
> O. Raabe
>
> Reference:  Raabe, OG: Toward Improved Ionizing Radiation Safety 
> Standards,
>      Health Phys. 101: 84-93; 2011
>
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> University of California
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************  
> _______________________________________________
> 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


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such information.