[ RadSafe ] Outlandish WIPP report and LNT

[Miller, Mark L]

Strive for Established Science, not Established Policy or Ideology.  Epidemiology not likely to provide answers.  We MUST use the correct null hypothesis to avoid a logical fallacy!  (The null hypothesis IS: "There is no effect of radiation exposure below 10 rem (0.1 Sv)".)  The burden of proof must be borne by whatever alternative hypothesis one chooses to test (e.g. LNT, hormesis, etc.).  Right now, we're going about it BACKWARDS and trying (without success) to prove a negative.
Use the Precautionary APPROACH, not Principle!  (Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Founder)
Don't Demonize or Romanticize....leave that to Republicans and the Democrats in Washington.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Keck [mailto:bradkeck at mac.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:32 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Outlandish WIPP report and LNT

But even if LNT is not supported by an abundance of data, it is greatly loved and admired as Prof. Cohen's experience points out.   I would much favor an approach similar to conventional chemical toxicology - establishment of a no effect level and application of a safety margin against that.  However, LNT and the philosophy that we are actually doing something with tiny reductions in  low doses continues to carry the day, even among HP's.  

How do we move people philosophically to a more conventional view of radiation toxicology - hopefully one aligned with the best science?   

Bradly D Keck, PhD, CHP






> On Feb 22, 2014, at 1:59 PM, "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> 
> At 01:48 PM 2/21/2014, Mark wrote:
>> As ridiculous as this article is, I suspect the authors actually believe in their fear mongering concerns.  They stem from the long-misused LNT that suggests that ANY radiation exposure, no matter how small, can kill you.  Just one more reason to put radiation protection on to a science-based platform and wait for the 1-2 generations to let the public's misguided radiophobia 'decay away".
> **************************
> February 22, 2014
> 
> I have written a dozen scientific papers including one in SCIENCE in 
> 1980 that show that radiation induced cancer is not a function of 
> cumulative dose and that the LNT does not apply to radiation induced cancer.
> 
> The A-bomb studies involve promotion of ongoing  cancer rates in the Japanese population.
> When Bernie Cohen showed quite conclusively that radon in homes is not 
> a carcinogen at low doses and that the LNT was wrong, he was assailed 
> by establishment scientists with imaginative but faulty explanations and criticism.
> 
> If LNT is the basis for all analyses as is common today, the findings 
> will always be consistent with LNT, a priori.
> 
> Science is supposed to be about truth rather than tradition.
> 
> 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
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu