Re: Schneeberg Study & Thresholds

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

> In your study, the number of cases was extremely small.

>  In fact on your one  graph, that Fritz is so exicted about, 

>showing exposure and lung cancer out

> of 6 of your exposure categories, 4 categories had 6 or 

>less cases.  I think you really need a larger sample size 

>before making the announcement that you

> are finding a threshold.



    Now, we again see discussion related to finding a threshold. As

previously shown, it is impossible to prove the existance (or absence) 

of a dose threshold. It is axiomatic that you cannot prove a negative.

 Radiation  protection policies such as ALARA are predicated on 

the assumed absence of a threshold. The underlying idea is that

unless a threshold can be proven (an impossibility), it is prudent to 

assume that no threshold exists. If, in fact, such a policy were prudent, 

why don't we have ALARA for all known or suspected harmful agents.

 If it is not prudent, then we are certainly wasting a lot of our limited 

resources protecting people against non-problems.

    If I am missing something here, please straighten me out.













************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/