Fw: NCRP -136

["jenday1" <jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>]

Jerry,

>From the text your letter, I did not get the impression you even read the

report.  It sounds like a canned statement.  Unless specific errors in their

report can be cited, I do not know how you can expect to establish any

credible criticism.  It is like saying the we all know the more crime is

commited during a full moom, without providing any police statistics.  The

report should provide the avenue to its own criticism.



I believe that we have actually two different types of investigations.  At

the cellular level, chromosome damage can be demonstrated, especially with

High LET radiation.  At the epidemological level, the harmful effects cannot

be demonstrated at doses less than 0.1 Sv.  I would like to see the

regulations reflect the latter than the former.  The problem is that we are

also required to teach the workers that risk exist at the smallest doses.



I do not know what your experiences are, but I do have to teach the workers.

And I always try explain to individuals these risks have never been

demonstrated in human studies at the radiation levels to which they are

exposed.  That is what the workers, and public want to hear.



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD 20715-2024

jenday1@email.msn.com (H)



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

From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; "jenday1" <jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>

Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:13 AM

Subject: Re: NCRP -136





I didn't say the subjects were ignored. They were simply dismissed

and likely considered  irrelevant or "bad science", as is most information

 inconsistent with previously established NCRP positions.

I did not want to cite the litany of specific problems with the report

because

others (John Cameron, Klaus Becker, etc.) have done a far superior job of

that than I could. Incidentally, if you can tell how the NCRP conclusions

tracked

from the information discussed in the body of their report, I would like to

know how. When you cut through all the baloney, it is apparent that

low-dose effect levels  are still inferred from high-dose observations.

If you consider that to be good science, I just can't agree.  Jerry

. . .



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

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.