[ RadSafe ] LNT - wrong null hypothesis?

[Scubaeqhp]

I agree, as long as it is applied to doses above 10 rad/rem and not below.



-----Original Message-----
From: KARAM, PHILIP <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT - wrong null hypothesis?


The concept of ALARA will remain valid (in my opinion) regardless of the model
used to describe low-dose effects. If (for example) there's a threshold then
it's not reasonable to reduce dose less than the threshold. So we will still
keep dose as low as reasonably achievable - keeping in mind what's reasonable,
given our understanding of the effects.

Andy


-----Original
Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Miller, Mark L
Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:18 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] LNT - wrong null
hypothesis?

The problem with non-scientifically based LNT is that was based
on a premise that used the WRONG null hypothesis.  It should have been:  "There
is no effect below ~ 10 rad/rem."  Instead, we have been chasing our elusive
tails for 60 years trying to quantify the effect below 10 rad (which doesn't
seem to exist!).  Once that paradigm has been successfully shifted, LNT and
ALARA will be replaced by good science.

-----Original Message-----
From:
Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH) [mailto:gyf7 at cdc.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday,
September 15, 2015 6:49 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health
Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: LNT

I agree with Andy
here. Estimations of biological effects from low dose/dose rate radiation
(especially below natural background) are problematic and will never be able to
be shown using epidemiological data. It's kind of like imagining a swimmer in a
pool of water up to his/her chest. The pool represents natural background
radiation. Now, it starts to rain on the swimmer. How much "wetter" is the
swimmer now?

Regards,
John Dixon

-----Original Message-----
From:
radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]
On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:42 AM
To: The
International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: LNT

I don't know
that a linear response has been demonstrated at doses of less than 0.1 Sv (10
rem), let alone in the range mentioned. I believe this is why the HPS recommends
against making numerical estimates of risk at doses any lower than this level.
I'd have to check ICRP and UNSCEAR to see what they say - but my recollection is
that all of these organizations acknowledge that, at the low end of the scale,
the data do not preclude non-linear interpretations or the possibility of a
threshold.

Andy


-----Original Message-----
From:
radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]
On Behalf Of Chris Alston
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:12 PM
To: The
International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [
RadSafe ] Fwd: LNT

Kjell

Are you sure that you want to ask about doses
"<0.2 *mSv*" (emphasis mine)?  That would be < 20
mrem.

Cheers
cja
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Johansen,
Kjell <Kjell.Johansen at nexteraenergy.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:41
PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT
To: "(radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu)"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>

Does anyone know whether LNT has been
demonstrated to exist at doses <0.2 mSv?  If not  , what is the lowest dose the
LNT hypothesis has been statistically shown to exist and what would be the error
associated with that estimate?
Comments and references would be
appreciated.

Kjell Johansen
Sr. Nuclear Chemistry Analyst
Point Beach
Nuclear Plant
Two Rivers, WI
54241
kjell.johansen at nee.com

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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