Re: NCRP 136

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

John, Bjorn, et al,

    Thanks for your comments on the questions I asked regarding NCRP-136.

Perhaps My questions were not clear. From the title of the report, I assumed

that the objective was to evaluate the linear non-threshold (LNT) model as

opposed to presenting a tutorial on radiation effects. Many excellent

textbooks  give a good overview of that subject and I did not see where this

report revealed any  particularly new insights. However, my question related

to how the information discussed in the body of the report led to the rather

muddled conclusion to the effect that the LNT  dose-response model is

reasonable.

    Questions relating to the efficacy of LNT that were not addressed in the

report include: (1)How to deal with the problem that if, in fact there

really is a dose threshold, it would be impossible to prove its existence ,

(2) why the focus on DNA aberration effects to the exclusion of all other

possible effects such as stimulation of immune response, and (3) why is all

the evidence supporting hormesis rejected (i.e. not reflected) in the

conclusions?



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

From: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; RadSafe <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:12 AM

Subject: RE: NCRP 136 and 137 now available





> Jerry,

> I believe that Chapters 3 through Chapter 9 are very important.  This

report

> is a review of the information that is currently available, along with the

> 51 pages of reference.  How do you expect to understand the underlying

> questions and data without knowing the underlying physics, biology and

> research that supports or refutes the theory.  Would you expect someone to

> understand the theory of evolution without seeing the data and underlying

> questions?

>

> Of course, if you have made up your mind, you do not need to bother with

the

> questions and science that these or any scientific theories propose.  You

> can take or reject them at face value.

>

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD  20715-2024

>

> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET]

> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:37 PM

> To: Sandy Perle; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; powernet@hps1.org

> Subject: Re: NCRP 136 and 137 now available

>

>

>     I have reviewed and commented on NCRP-136. One aspect of this report

> that I did not comment on has me puzzled and perhaps someone else who has

> reviewed the report can enlighten me.

>     Most of the material covered in Chapters 3 to 9 seemed to be

irrelavent

> to the overall subject and I really could not understand how the

information

> discussed in the body of the report tracked to its conclusions. For

example,

> how does the discussion of DNA repair, oncogenic transformation, etc.

affect

> the question of whether LNT is a valid concept and/or reasonable basis for

> low-dose radiation exposure standards????





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

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.