Re: Hormesis and LNT

["Joan Stovall" <joans@PCEZ.COM>]

Thanks for the kind words.  I should have probably referred to detection

limit in the post.  IF  LNT were true, there is little way they could detect

the effects they claim to exist at low doses.



I saw something interesting relative to the question of arsenic.  Though New

Mexico probably has the highest statewide average arsenic concentration in

drinking water,  New Mexico also has one of the very lowest incidence rates

for bladder cancer.  The LNT crowd would have us believe that New Mexico

should have one of the highest incidence rates for bladder cancer.  The CDC

ASTDR web page has some interesting comments about animal studies relating

to arsenic.



Cohen's work on indoor radon does, as others have pointed out, show results

that are in  complete contradiction to what is expected by LNT.  Another

good study on the effects of low-level radiation was performed in India

during the mid 1980's and published in the Health Physics issue on hormesis

research.



Joan



----- Original Message -----

From: "Fritz A. Seiler" <faseiler@nmia.com>

To: "Joan Stovall" <joans@pcez.com>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 8:37 AM

Subject: Re: Hormesis and LNT





> Dear Joan,

>

>         Well, I also have a problem with trying not to be sarcastic about

the

> LNT! I grew up as an experimental nuclear physicist and learned what

"Doing

> Good Science" means.  I almost studied theoretical nuclear Physics (which

I

> later did).  In all this work, I learned to respect the influence of good

data

> and its relationship with theory.  So I get aggravated when I see the LNT

> crowd blatantly ignoring good data (Bernie Cohen etc.) or set them aside

with

> some blatantly illogical argument. That lack of logic was the reason for

our

> last publication.(*) and for my reaction to the statement that you need

huge

> data sets at low doses.  The key is that while you do need huge samples

for

> small effects, that is not necessarily true for small doses.  But for a

> Linearist small doses and small effects are the same!

>         I agree with your math, no trouble there! But when I came to the

US in

> 1980 and joined the staff at Lovelace ITRI, that was the reason given to

me

> why you should not try to do low-dose experiments unless you have money to

> waste!  It took a while to find out that the argument was based on an

effect

> decreasing monotonically with decreasing dose.

> Remove that basis and the argument is wrong.  Your argument stands because

you

> don't say how large or small the incidence, npq, is.

>

> (*)  Seiler, F.A., & Alvarez, J.L. (2000). Is the 'ecological fallacy' a

> fallacy? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 6, 921-941.

>

> Have a nice week,

>

> Fritz

> --

>

>  " The American Republic will endure until the day Congress

>  discovers that it can bribe the Public with the Public's money."

>                                        Alexis de Tocqueville

>                                        Democracy in America

>

> ***************************

>

> Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.

> Sigma Five Consulting

> P.O. Box 1709

> Los Lunas, NM 87031, USA

> Tel.    505-866-5193

> Fax.    505-866-5197

> e-mail: faseiler@nmia.com

>

> ***************************

>

>

>



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

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.