Cohen's ecological data: a test of LNT

[Western Radiation Services <westrad@nimrod.com.au>]

I have followed with interest the above thread, both now and on previous
occasions on RADSAFE. We have on one side the proponents of a hypothesis
(LNTH)and its associated assumptions. There are some data that indicate that
the LNTH might be possible, but it remains unproven.

On the other hand, we have those who contend that radiation effects on
health may have a threshold value for exposure below which there are no
measurable health effects and those who contend that low levels of exposure
can be beneficial to health (hormesis). The threshold value is accepted for
virtually all environmental contaminants except radiation.

Cohen has collected a large volume of data which indicates that the LNTH as
applied to radon exposure to a very large population exposed to radon gas at
varying levels shows a trend that is the reverse of that predicted by the LNTH.

There is also a large amount of data that indicates a hormesis effect.

Radiation is the ONLY natural or man-made environmental contaminant for
which a LNT effect is proposed. All other known carcinogens have maximum
permissible exposure levels set for human exposure, which until recently was
the case with radiation and radioactive materials. It is interesting to
observe that some natural radioactive materials are excluded (those present
in foodstuffs and drinking water such as 14C and 40K).

I accept that some very small minority of people may be susceptible to, and
suffer deleterious health effects from, exposure to low levels of radiation.
There are also a minority of people who are allergic to shellfish and other
naturally occurring materials who suffer ill effects and sometimes die as a
result of exposure. Would it not be more logical to apply the LNTH to those
known materials that are known to cause health effects than to search
desperately and at great expense for some sort of "proof" that infinitesimal
quantities of radiation may have some ill effects.

It is our duty and moral responsibility as scientists to work for the
benefit of mankind and when we see enormous sums of money and scientific
effort being spent to protect people from what frightens them (the politics
of fear promulgated by the Caldicotts, Gofmans and others of that ilk) and
the things that are actually killing them are ignored we should call a stop
to the waste.

By all means carry on with the research, but do NOT accept as fact an
unproven (and possibly unprovable) hypothesis and do not allow others to do
so unchallenged.

Bill Chandler   

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