[ RadSafe ] Who is RESPONSIBLE for LNT i.e AUTHOR. Five Greatest Science Blunders

[David Lee]

Otto,

Sorry for my  confusion.

L is Linear-?
N is None threshold-?
T is Theory-?

Or you mean one plus one is not two i.e collective dose is not Y-?
OKAY.

I have to say before I start. I have a huge suspiciouse that what I am
about to aks and say, was already asked and said before 100 times atleast.,
here. So bear with me.

Is there an author(s) of LNT? Or isn't?
Now my vague memory and logic are saying. Was it nameless BEIR  or ICRP and
then something like NCRPT or some other nameless abbreviation?

What is my point?

My point is:

It was a COLLECTIVE EFFORT/OPINION/MISTAKE/RESPONSIBILITY whatever.
I did my reading, I have noticed and all those FOX news five theories
blunts had their AUTHORS.
LNT has none.
Like an invisible ninja. You can't point your mind. It is a ninja.

You are keep asking us Radsafers LNT is wrong! again and again.
And we are like in Mowgli, those monkeys are keep answering to you: you are
right Python LNT is wrong, you are right Ka, you are right Ka.

Otto,

Whom are you asking?

I aint done it? James Lui and Sayed Rokni did not do it, neither.

So who are you keep asking?
BEIR and ICRP are invisible ninja i.e. mutating virus (pardon my analogy
honorary members)
Committee members are keep changing like ABHPS, well you know that, you
were once ABHPS president and then president elect  or reverse order.
I mean that ALL these organizations have NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (period)
Even Darwin when he was dead, but it was known Darwin made theory of
evolution.

LNT......Loyd Nancy Turner?

I am not trying to throw personal blames around here.
I am trying to understand who is in charge of the LNT.

1. Recall those nameless members out of their retirements, put them in a
nice hotel in Hawaii and ask them nicely to change their opinion on LNT. To
me, it would be logical.
2. Name names of present day ninja members. (I ain't done it).
3. Congress petion? Congress did not make LNT. Of course, Congress can do
almost everything.
I have some problems with this approach, it is UNFAIR.
Congress men and women do not know what is LNT, so it is not a scientific
approach to reverse theory.

Have a nice evening.

Dave.



On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Otto G. Raabe <ograabe at ucdavis.edu> wrote:

> David Lee
>
>> Very interesting analogies in the article.
>> 1. So LNT is Y=aX introduction into algebra.
>> 2. Now, we think Y=aX-5 ?
>> 3. I heard of Y= sqr(aX)-5   5 is probably 25 or more like 50
>>
> *************
> CORRECTION:
>
> THE PROBLEM IS THAT Y is NOT a function of X in the case of LNT
>
> since radiation induced cancer, Y, is not a function of cumulative dose, X!
>
> Otto
>
>
> ************************************************
> 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 <http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>