Re: LNT

["Les Crable" <lescrable@HOTMAIL.COM>]

Ruth stated, "It has taken a perfectly reasonable number of decades to 

accumulate epidemiological evidence of a threshold, and evidence (like 

Bernard Cohen's) that contradicts the LNT."



Ruth, I have some major concerns about the LNT also, but what do you offer 

as an alternative?  What is the dose response for the various forms (alpha, 

beta, etc.)of radiation? Is there a threshold?  If so, does it apply to all 

types of radiation? Is a possible threshold affected by dose rate?  I do not 

see a good alternative right now.  If you are hanging your hat on Dr. 

COhen's ecologic studies to support dumping the LNT, it is obvious you are 

in a weak stance to defend your view.  No wonder the "establishment" laughs 

when we use examples like Cohen's studies or Muckerheide's obscure journal 

articles to support the position that the LNT should be abandoned.  I don't 

even believe in the validity of the LNT in most cases, but I tend to cling 

to it more when I see the "science" that is being held up to defeat it.



Les Crable







>From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM

>Reply-To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM

>To: liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM

>CC: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Re: LNT

>Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:35:46 EST

>

>In a message dated 1/14/02 5:32:06 AM Mountain Standard Time,

>liptonw@dteenergy.com writes:

>

>

> > I fail to understand how whomever "wins" this debate will affect 

>anything

> > other than the egos of those involved.

>

>Au contraire,as a colleague of mine used to say!  If LNT is ditched, the

>standards can be redone to be reasonable and a great deal of mooney can be

>put to better use.  I don't think it's an "ego" thing at all.

>

>  At the risk of repeating myself too often (However, if no one's 

>listening,

>am I really

> > repeating myself - let's debate that!), we have no one but ourselves to

> > blame for any overly restrictive standards.  When generous research 

>funding

> > was available, it was expedient to promote LNT as a means of procuring 

>more

> > than our fair share.  Well, strange bedfellows always look a lot worse 

>the

> > morning after!  It's too late to change this, however.

> >

>This is almost un believably small-minded.  The LNT was initially presented

>as a reasonably conservatiuve "working hypothesis."  It was as necessary to

>research the health effects of ionizing radiation as the health effects of

>exposure to tuberculosis or yellow fever.  It has taken a perfectly

>reasonable number of decades to accumulate epidemiological evidence of a

>threshold, and evidence (like Bernard Cohen's) that contradicts the LNT.

>

>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

>ruthweiner@aol.com





_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/