Re: I'm get tired of it too, but...

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

Most actual data are at variance with "current risk estimates," which are
usually simply the slope of a linear extrapolation (back to zero) of
observations at relatively high doses.  This is, by the way, as true for
other carcinogens as for radioactive materials (inhaled arsenic, for
example).  The passage of time (we speak of LATENT cancer fatalities, after
all) has allowed the accumulation of enough data that there is growing
actual evidence of threshold values for a number of carcinogens.  The
hypothesis alternate to the LNT (to go with the ether example) is that there
are thresholds for carcinogens.

Moreover, there was never actual data supporting the LNT hypothesis -- it
was a conservative model made in the absence of data.

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
7336 Lew Wallace NE
Albuquerque, NM
505-856-5011
fax 505-856-5564
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: William Prestwich <prestwic@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: I'm get tired of it too, but...


>Jim,
> I am certainly one of the unwashed when it comes to epidemiology,
>but my basic instincts as a scientist of some 40 years lead me to conclude
>that Dr.Cohen's data is at variance with current risk assessments, and
>casts grave doubt upon them. I think the response that it is his
>responsibility to show that the rest of the world is wrong is
>incorrect. At one time the world believed in a luminiferous ether. When
>experiments showed that the velocity of light in vacuuo was a universal
>constant, no one demanded the experimenters show why this were the
>case. The reaction was the correct one-to develop an alternative
>hypothesis.
> Well, having said all this, I can't support your accusations that
>those on the other side of the debate are all members of a conspiracy and
>are behaving in a scientifically unethical manner. How, for example,
>could agencies of the United States Government suppress a Canadian study,
>as you seem to imply?
> Finally, I think the comment by Michael Ford regarding the doctor
>in Colorado is very important. Would a quantitative assessment of his
>experience be consistent or inconsistent with the current risk estimates
>and could an expanded study of the experiences of doctors in similar
>situations be useful. It doesn't seem to me these would fall under the
>category of ecological studies.
>
>Sincerely,
>Bill Prestwich,
>McMaster University
>Hamilton, Ontario.
>E-mail prestwic@mcmaster.ca
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>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