[ RadSafe ] LNT Dogma? - Future of Radiation Safety Regulations
Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
Thu Aug 20 14:35:10 CDT 2015
It is ironic that the individual quoted below believes the LNT model is almost certainly wrong, and still is a strong proponent of the model. If one believes some concept is wrong or is almost certainly wrong, one should be a strong opponent, not a strong proponent of that concept. If the statement by this individual is the best summation of the LNT model, it is really a pathetic situation (for the LNT model).
Keeping in mind the accepted criterion that book-keeping should be made easier, in contrast to the LNT model (which is almost certainly wrong, as stated by the strong proponent - I accept his judgement), the radiation hormesis model (which is almost certainly correct, as stated by me, a strong proponent, because there is plenty of data supporting it - see presentation at link below), if used for regulations, would simplify book-keeping tremendously, as no book-keeping need be required for low-doses, since cancer risks would be lowered by low-dose radiation. The current proponents of the LNT model (who desire simpler book-keeping) should welcome this! The regulations should of course require book-keeping for potential high dose situations, but these would be few and far between. There is a wide gap that separates low doses that are beneficial from high doses that are harmful, and so it would be easy to separate the two situations, and require book-keeping only for the latter. I discussed this concept for radiation protection regulations (for the future, if radiation hormesis concept is accepted) at the recent HPS Annual Meeting in the Low-dose symposium. If anyone is interested in viewing the presentation, it is available in ResearchGate at: https://goo.gl/A7EcfB . I welcome comments and criticisms, either in this forum or via private email. Thanks.
With best regards,
Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
Fox Chase Cancer Center,
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:36 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT Dogma?
The best summation of LNT that I've heard was from a strong LNT proponent (sorry - can't remember his name at the moment). In a discussion after some presentations he said "LNT is almost certainly wrong, but it makes the book-keeping easy."
According to the final arbiter of all knowledge (Wikipedia) "Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself."
LNT is not scientific dogma, but it has effectively become dogma for the ALARA philosophy, and near-dogma for regulatory, national, and international advisory bodies. And I would say that it is certainly dogma for all of the anti-nuclear and anti-radiation groups.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz Schönhofer
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:27 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT Dogma?
Anybody really knows, what a "Dogma" is? Look it up on Google. LNT does not fit to this definition. Especially LNT is lively debated and not taken for granted by many scientists. Therefore it cannot be called a Dogma. However having been a lawmaker I confess, that the concept of LNT has its great advantage!!!!! Now load your guns, fill your flaming devices- I`ll be able to stand it and anyway I am used to flaming. Compared to Austrian ministery intrigues this is a "sweet nothing"!
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.
More information about the RadSafe