Re: Breast cancer, some ideas

["JOHN JACOBUS" <JENDAY1@email.msn.com>]

S. Julian Gibbs wrote:

. . . Doses in the positive studies are much greater than
environmental, diagnostic medical, etc.

However, even if we accept worst case sensitivity, the LNT
model, then the sum of environmental plus medical plus all
other radiation exposures is not nearly sufficient to
account for all breast cancer.  The majority of cases must
arise from other causes.

***********************************************************
As with most cancers, the causes are not ionizing radiation.  Or
non-ionizing radiation, either.

Scientific investigation is a long process of observing, developing a
hypothesis or theory, experimenting, and validation by testing again.  Does
anyone remember cold fusion? The LNT is a theory that was use to establish
our regulations.  I think that was wrong based on what we know now, but it
was done because it seemed reasonable at the time.  We need to change our
regulations.  To me, if we cannot demonstrate an ill effect below some level
of exposure, we should regulate down to that level and stop wasting our
resources below that level.  To say you get a benefit from radiation at low
levels is (1) hard to prove if you leave the laboratory setting; and (2) not
the issue, since we regulate for adverse effects.

It would be interesting to take a poll of the readers on RADSAFE, and to see
how many believe that radiation has an adverse effect below 1 mSv. Or 10
mSv. Or even 100 mSv.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS, CHP
Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
jenday1@email.msn.com (H)



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