Re: Risks of low level radiation - New Scientist Article

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

> From: "Jim Nelson" <nelsonjima@HOTMAIL.COM>

 

> Phillippe,

> 

> I know this is not the position endorsed by Radiation Science and Health (so

> dare I speak it without fear of attack), but Lubin's and Smith et al.

> refutation of Cohen's data were very convinvcing to me.

> 

> Jim



Lubin, Samet, Smith, and other LNT-committed never produced a "refutation of

Cohen's data" (and didn't refute Cohen's analysis either :-)  They only did

a song-and-dance on why Cohen's study COULD be in error. They couldn't

identify an error; and Cohen did produce quantitative analyses that refute

their disingenuous rationalizations. Since nobody cares about science, but

only that the LNT be sustained by NCRP/ICRP et al., they just need rhetoric

to con innumerate politicians and the uninformed bureaucracy.



Jim

 

>> From: "Philippe Duport" <pduport@uottawa.ca>



>> Jim Nelson reminds us of BEIR VI and of the Iowa study; Otto of Bernie

>> Cohen's work.  Radon epidemiology would be more instructive if real

>> uncertainties in exposures (and, if low radiation dose to the lung is the

>> cause of cancer, all non-radon lung doses - and associated errors - received

>> by uranium miners) were taken into account in determining comprehensive error

>> bars.  Bernie Cohen's work has been criticized but I may have missed a

>> numerical refutation of his conclusions (how big should have been the

>> confounders and what correlation should there be between them to account for

>> the discrepancy with LNT predictions?).



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

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.