[ RadSafe ] Outlandish WIPP report and LNT - Use Conventional Toxicology Approach?

[Brad Keck]

In conventional risk analysis, one must necessarily begin with a conservative assumption - such as LNT.  However, as knowledge is acquired,  a "weight of evidence" approach should reflect that knowledge.  

Perhaps we will have to say that the risk is "indistinguishable from background" rather than "safe."   

But even this small step would be a step forward to embrace the best knowledge.    

Bradly D. Keck PhD, CHP






> On Feb 24, 2014, at 3:06 PM, "Leo M. Lowe" <llowe at senes.ca> wrote:
> 
> It has been suggested in this on-going discussion about the lack of data supporting LNT in radiological risk assessment, that an approach similar to conventional toxicology might be used.
> 
> However, for non-radiological carcinogens, I believe that the same LNT approach is used in conventional toxicology.  Slope or risk factors that convert exposures to cancer risk are used, without threshold.  There is no "no effect" level assumed for cancer risk.
> 
> 
> 
> Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D., P.Phys., CRadP
> _______________________________________________
> 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