[ RadSafe ] Mohan Doss's comment on the BMJ article in RadSafe Digest Vol. 1950, issue 1
parthasarathy k s
ksparth at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Nov 2 23:54:33 CST 2015
I am keen to analyse papers that show reduction in cancer due to radiation exposure.Primarily my aim is to convince myself before writing an article in The Hindu.
A few years ago, I had discussions on the issue with (Late) Prof Cameron who probably was the first to address the issue in a daily news paper.
If time permits, can you send a list of most relevant publications on the topic.I wish to bring some of these facts in an address I plan to give to a chapter of the Association of Medical Physicists of India
I recall reading a discussion and a brief conclusion of NRC specialists on the Report of the French Academy which conclusively differed from the views of BEIR VII.NRC argued that there aee no compelling reasons to change the then prevalent view
On Tuesday, 3 November 2015, 8:51, "Doss, Mohan" <Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu> wrote:
When there is a fundamental error in the design of a study, it would be right to reject the study. As an example: If a scientist is attempting to measure the effect of plant growth as a function of watering frequency (daily, once in 2 days, once in 3 days, etc.), and conducts the study outdoors in different seasons, different areas, etc., and ignores the rain that would be occurring at different rates, the study would be deeply flawed. One would not place any trust in the results from such a study. You may say it is a matter of opinion to reject such a study, but I would say it is a matter of logic, not a matter of opinion. It is a simple but major error. Neglecting medical radiation dose is such an error in the INWORKS study.
We should use models when we do not have data. When we have data, the data should be used. There is plenty of data that show reduction of cancers following low-dose radiation exposure. Of course there are lots of publications showing support for the LNT model. However, such publications are found to have major flaws making their conclusions not trustworthy. If we are gullible and accept all such publications at face value without analyzing the validity of the publications, we would be unable to decide which is the correct side.
Re: Chernobyl question - it is on my list, but there are more important issues to address at present. Hence the delay. But I will address it sometime.
With best regards,
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Crane
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:21 PM
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mohan Doss's comment on the BMJ article in RadSafe Digest Vol. 1950, issue 1
Mohan, maybe I misunderstand you, but it seems that you are saying that any paper that disagrees with your viewpoint can be disregarded a priori, since experience shows that it is bound to be flawed. This does not seem consistent with the openmindedness and receptivity to new information that are hallmarks not only of good science but also of rational discourse generally.
RadSafers should be aware that the Subcommittee of the NRC's Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes presented their report to the full Committee last Wednesday. Their unanimous view was that although there was data on both sides of the issue, nothing had been presented so compelling as to meet the threshold necessary to reject the LNT and ALARA as a basis for regulation. They indicated that more study was needed, as well as an openminded approach to these issues. Their report was adopted unanimously by the full Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes. It should be stressed that their charter did not include evaluating the three petitions now before the NRC; rather, it was confined to giving their views on the LNT and hormesis.
I hope, Mohan, that you will not ascribe the findings of the Subcommittee and the full Committee to pecuniary motives. That would do them a serious injustice.
Incidentally, Mohan, I am looking forward to hearing your views, promised some weeks ago, on both the significance of thyroid cancer and the relevance of the post-Chernobyl thyroid cancers. It will be recalled that the opinion of Carol Marcus was that the radiation doses were too low for those cancers to be relevant to this debate, whereas your opinion was that the radiation doses were too high for them to be relevant. Given that your petition claimed to be supportive of Carol's, I was puzzled by the apparent contradiction.
-- Peter Crane, NRC Counsel for Special Projects (retired)
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.
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
More information about the RadSafe