Re: LNT - HP education

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

See comments below.

Kjell Johansen wrote:

> If HP education now includes LNT as gospel as Jim Muckerheide states,
> things have really changed over the years.  I was taught that LNT was a
> conservative model of dose response to be used for radiation protection
> purposes until further knowledge was obtained at low doses.  Of course,
> that was back in the '60s.  Somehow over the years it appears that LNT
> has gone from a working hypothesis deemed to be conservative to
> something akin to "fact" in spite of confounding data which is dismissed
> because it does not fit the LNT paradigm.

That is exactly what has happened.  It happened IMHO because knowledgeable
people did not correct every time statements that changed the "may" in "low
doses may cause harm" to "will." So the statement read: "Low doses will
cause harm."  We have let the lie persist until it is now perceived as the
truth.  You are very perceptive to have seen this.  Al Tschaeche
antatnsu@pacbell.net

> As Ken Mossman wrote
> (Trivialization of Radiation Hormesis, SSI News, 2/99, page 15) "What we
> are experiencing is a situation where any alternative theory to LNT is
> either completely ignored or is subject to a higher standard of
> scientific proof."
>
> As always, just my own thoughts and not necessarily those of my
> employer.
>
> Kjell Johansen
> Wisconsin Electric Power Company
> Milwaukee
> kjell.johansen@wepco.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html